The  Prevention  of  Fire 

in  Boston 


Report  of  the 

Committee  on  Fire  Prevention 

of  the 

Boston  Chamber  of  Commerce 


Boston,  Mass. 
September,  1911 


INTRODUCTORY  NOTE. 


■  The  Committee  on  Fire  Prevention  of  the  Boston  Chamber 
of  Commerce  was  appointed  August  25th,  1910,  with  instructions 
to  prepare  and  submit  to  the  Board  of  Directors  a  report  on  condi¬ 
tions  in  Boston  relating  to  fire  hazard  and  losses,  with  recommen¬ 
dations  as  to  the  best  method  to  follow  in  improving  these  con¬ 
ditions.  ;  I  A !  #1 

In  carrying  out  these  instructions,  the  committee  has  conferred 
with  a  number  of  persons  qualified  to  advise  in  reference  to  the 
various  phases  of  the  question — representatives  of  the  Boston 
Board  of  Fire  Underwriters,  Associated  Factory  Mutual  Insur¬ 
ance  Company  and  of  the  Boston  Finance  Commission,  members 
of  the  Fire  (Hazard  Commission  appointed  by  the  Mayor 
of  Boston,  with  the  Building  Commissioner,  the  Fire  Com¬ 
missioner,  and  others.  The  committee  has  also  studied  the  reports  of 
various  insurance  companies,  national  and  local  boards  of  fire 
underwriters,  the  Fire  Protective  Association,  state  commissions, 
the  Geological  Survey,  and  others.  Figures  compiled  from  these 
reports  appear  in  the  appendices. 


ZO%10 6 


EXISTING  CONDITIONS. 


It  is  a  remarkable  feature  of  American  civilization  that  the 
loss  of  property  due  to  fire  in  the  United  States  is  $250,000,000  a 
year,  about  $2.50  for  every  man,  woman  and  child  in  the  country. 
This  is  seven  times  the  average  per  capita  loss  in  European  coun¬ 
tries.  It  amounts  to  one-fourth  as  much  as  the  value  of  new 
construction.  We  burn  down  quarter  as  much  as  we  build  up. 

Not  less  remarkable  is  the  complacency  with  which  the  public 
views  this  destruction.  Even  though  the  seriousness  of  the  situ¬ 
ation  is  repeatedly  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  public  by  the 
daily  press  and  by  reports  of  insurance  organizations,  the  average 
citizen  seems  well  content  to  let  things  go  on  as  they  are,  without 
making  any  move  toward  improvement. 

It  is  hard  to  understand  how  this  attitude  can  prevail,  when 
it  is  so  clear  to  one  who  devotes  a  moment’s  thought,  that  the  fire 
waste  is  a  real  and  irretrievable  loss,  the  destruction  ot  ^.*operty 
reducing  by  just  so  much  the  aggregate  wealth  of  the  community. 
This  loss  falls  upon  every  member  of  the  community  in  the  form  of 
increased  taxes,  increased  insurance  rates,  increased  cost  of  build¬ 
ing  materials,  increased  rent,  and,  sooner  or  later,  may  fall  upon 
*  any  one  in  the  more  obvious  form  of  direct  personal  loss  due  to  a 
fire  in  his  own  home  or  place  of  business. 

Furthermore,  the  money  loss  by  no  means  represents  the  real 
cost  of  fire.  The  consequential  loss  due  to  sacrifice  of  lives,  dam¬ 
age  to  business  and  homes,  interruption  of  employment  for  many 
persons,  and  to  general  derangement  of  civic  functions  is  so  large 
that  one  dare  not  try  to  estimate  it.  It  surely  represents  several 
times  the  actual  property  loss,  thus  carrying  the  total  cost  of  fire  into 
the  billions. 

The  comparison  of  per  capita  losses  in  this  country  and  Eu¬ 
rope,  as  shown  in  Appendix  I. — $2.50  in  the  United  States,  33 


cents  in  Europe — is-  so  startling  that  it  suggests  a  study  of  the  rela¬ 
tive  conditions  to  see  if  the  methods  'which  prevail  in  foreign  coun¬ 
tries  could  be  introduced  here.  An  investigation  of  foreign  condi¬ 
tions  as  compared  with  those  in  this  country  brings  out  that: 

'\ 

The  building  construction  is  much  better  on  the  average, 
and  in  some  cities  practically  all  buildings  are  of  fireproof 
construction. 

Building  laws  are  more  rigidly  enforced,  and  frequent  in¬ 
spections  are  made. 

A  well  organized  fire  marshal  system  exists  in  practically 
every  city,  and  the  causes  of  all  fires  are  investigated.  A  fire 
is  considered  a  crime  and  the  guilty  punished,  resulting  in 
much  greater  individual  responsibility. 

The  fire  departments  in  foreign  countries  are  certainly  no  bet¬ 
ter  than  ours,  and  probably  on  the  average  not  as  good.  The  pre¬ 
ventive  measures  mentioned  above  are  the  fundamental  reasons  for 
freedom  from  fire  waste. 

In  foreign  countries  conflagrations  are  practically  unknown, 
while  in  this  country  they  are  very  common.  The  reason  for  this 
condition  is,  of  course,  the  large  amount  of  wood  construction 
used  in  this  country.  .  Even  in  our  large  cities  where  fireproof 
buildings  have  become  general,  there  are  still  in  existence  groups 
of  buildings  which  on  the  interior  are  largely  constructed  of  wood. 
These  so-called  second  class  buildings  make  possible  a  conflagra¬ 
tion  at  any  time.  Such  a  holocaust  as  has  been  experienced  by 
Elizabeth,  Chelsea,  Baltimore,  San  Francisco,  Portland,  and  Bangor 
may  be  expected  in  Boston  at  any  time. 

The  number  of  deaths  due  to  fire  is  also  out  of  all  reasonable 
proportion  in  this  country,  over  6000  people  having  lost  their  lives 
in  one  year.  The  loss  of  life  in  foreign  countries  is  small.  All 
rules  and  regulations  which  tend  toward  the  reduction  of  fire 
waste  will,  of  course,  reduce  this  loss  of  life.  Recent  experiences 
in  this  country,  particularly  the  fire  of  April  7th,  1911,  New  York 
City,  show  an  utter  disregard  for  law  and  reasonable  conditions  of 
safety. 

Further,  it  is  important  to  realize  that  in  this  country  in  manu¬ 
facturing  buildings  which  are  insured  in  the  mutual  companies  pre¬ 
ventive  measures  have  been  introduced  most  successfully,  and  that 

.  -  ^  -  6 .  .... 


the  loss  by  fire  in  this  field  is  reduced  to  a  remarkably  low  point. 
Some  figures  have  been  compiled  in  this  connection  and  are  given 
in  Appendix  II.  This  is  a  very  important  consideration,  since  it  is 
practically  conclusive  proof  that  fire  waste  in  this  country  can  be 
reduced,  provided  the  proper  regulations  are  enforced. 

The  reduction  of  fire  losses  will  mean  not  only  a  direct  saving 
of  property  and  life,  but  a  corresponding  reduction  in  the  cost  of 
insurance  to  every  policy  holder.  In  order  to  prevent  a  loss  by  fire 
from  falling  upon  one  individual  the  present  system  of  fire  insurance 
has  been  developed,  through  which  a  tax  in  the  form  of  premiums 
is  levied  and  a  fund  established  to  reimburse  the  individual  sufferer. 
It  is  evident  that  the  amount  of  this  premium  must  be  proportional 
to  the  total  fire  loss,  and  must  in  addition  cover  the  cost  of  services 
and  guarantee  of  the  insurance  companies.  Each  individual  thus 
feels  the  fire  loss  directly  through  the  amount  of  his  insurance  prem¬ 
iums.  Reliable  statistics  regarding  the  profits  of  insurance  com¬ 
panies  bear  out  the  fact  that  no  reduction  in  the  average  premium 
can  be  expected  without  a  reduction  in  the  fire  loss.  (See  Apoen- 
dix  III.) 


RECOMMENDATIONS. 

This  Committee,  after  giving  consideration  to  the  above  facts 
regarding  fire  waste,  submits  the  following  recommendations : 

I. 

To  reduce  the  construction  hazard: — 

(a)  The  enactment  of  city  ordinances  which  shall  prohibit 
the  construction  of  any  third  class  building  within  the  city  lim¬ 
its. 

(b)  The  enactment  of  a  law  prohibiting  the  construction 
of  any  but  fireproof  buildings  within  the  congested  business 
district  of  the  city.* 

(c)  The  passage  of  a  law  requiring  all  second  or  third 
class  buildings  now  existing  within  the  congested  business  dis¬ 
trict  of  the  city  to  be  equipped  with  sprinkler  service,  ex¬ 
cept  that  houses  for  habitation  not  used  in  any  portion  for  any 
other  purpose  need  not  be  so  equipped,  and  that  hotels  and 

*For  definition  of  “congested  district”  see  draft  of  proposed 
law  in  Appendix  X. 

7 


I 


lodging  houses  need  be  so  equipped  only  in  the  basement,  first 
story  and  public  halls,  dining  rooms  or  assembly  rooms.'"' 

2 

To  prevent  carelessness  or  deliberate  mismanagement: — 

■  (a)  The  passage  of  a  law  creating  a  Fire  Bureau  empow¬ 

ered  to  examine  into  every  fire  and  make  a  published  report 
thereon,  giving  in  deta^’  ^he  cause  of  the  fire  and  locating  the 
exact  responsibility  in  much  the  same  manner  as  the  coroner’s 
jury  investigates  a  crime. 

(b)  The  passage  of  a  law  regulating  the  issuing  of  fire 
insurance  covering  any  building  previous  to  approval  by  formal 
act  of  said  Fire  Bureau. 

3* 

To  improve  the  efficiency  of  the  fire-fighting  systems: — 

(a)  The  installation  of  a  high  pressure  fire  service  car¬ 
ried  through  the  streets  of  the  congested  portion  of  the  city.t 

(b)  Doing  away,  as  rapidly  as  conditions  will  permit, 
with  the  obsolete  and  cumbersome  system  of  portable  engines 
and  machinery  operated  by  horses,  and  the  substitution  of  self- 
propelled  fire  apparatus. 

REASONS  FOR  RECOMMENDATIONS 

We  offer  the  following  reasons  for  our  recommendations: 

Third  Class  Structures 

Third  class  structures  are  now  prohibited  within  what  is 
known  as  the  building  limits,  including  the  central  business  portion 
of  the  city.$ 

^According  to  the  building  law  a  first  class  building  is  one 
wholly  of  fireproof  construction;  a  second  class  building  is  one  of 
which  the  exterior  is  wholly  of  non-combustible  material,  while  a 
third  class  building  is  one  constructed  within  and  without,  wholly 
or  in  part,  of  wood. 

tThis  the  committee  previously  recommended,  and  the  city  has 
accepted  chapter  312  of  the  Acts  of  1911,  providing  for  such  a  serv¬ 
ice. .  For  copy  of  law,  see  Appendix  I'V. 

tFor  existing  ordinances  in  Boston  and  other  cities,  see  Ap¬ 
pendices  V  and  VI. 


8 


The  fire  loss  in  third  class  buildings  throughout  the  outlying 
districts  of  the  city  is  admittedly  very  light,*  but  the  danger  from 
these  is  not  merely  that  they  shall  burn  themselves  but  that  by 
burning  they  shall  communicate  fire  to  their  neighbors.  The  busi¬ 
ness  districts  are  constantly  encroaching  on  the  residential  and  the 
most  dangerous  zones  are  in  the  fringe  between  the  thickly  built 
districts  and  the  residential.  It  is  more  than  likely  that  we  may 
have  a  most  disastrous  conflagration  in  the  Dorchester  and  Roxbury 
districts  which  are  built  up  almost  entirely  of  cheap  wooden  apart¬ 
ments,  placed  very  close  to  one  another  in  continuous  blocks.  Not¬ 
withstanding  the  menace  they  are  to  the  city,  we  cannot  obliterate 
these  structures,  but  we  can  prohibit  the  building  of  any  new  dis¬ 
tricts  of  the  same  sort,  and  can  provide  that  as  the  city  pushes 
towards  the  suburbs  it  will  not  be  faced  with  such  conditions  as  now 
exist  in  the  thickly  settled  region  to  the  south  and  west. 

The  Mayor  and  the  Fire  Commissioner  of  Boston  both  favor  an 
extension  of  the  building  limits,  within  which  wooden  buildipgs  are 
prohibited.  This  committee  believes  that  such  extension  should 
include  the  entire  city  of  Boston.  The  objection  which  has  been 
made  to  any  such  extension  comes  from  the  owners  or  representa¬ 
tives  of  land  in  the  outlying  sections  which  are  now  regarded  as 
available  for  the  erection  of  the  cheap  type  of  three-story  wooden 
tenement  houses,  and  from  the  dealers  in  materials  used  in  the 
cheaper  forms  of  construction.  Opposition  is  made  on  the  ground 
that  it  will  be  a  great  hardship  to  the  owners  of  land  and  to  the 
tenants  who  would  occupy  the  buildings  to  compel  the  expenditure 
of  a  larger  amount  of  money  in  construction,  with  a  consequent  in¬ 
crease  in  the  rate  of  rental.  This  committee  has  carefully  exam¬ 
ined  the  merits  of  these  arguments,  and  has  found  that  the  addi¬ 
tional  cost  of  construction  of  second  class  buildings  which  would 
meet  the  requirements  is  so  small  that  owners  could  well  afiford  to 
lease  them  at  the  same  rental  as  the  cheaper  buildings  command, 
because  of  the  savipg  in  the  cost  of  maintenance  and  repairs.  Sev¬ 
eral  methods  of  stucco,  concrete  and  brick  construction  have  been 
suggested.  A  set  of  house  plans  of  a  building  which  has  actually 
been  erected  was  submitted  to  five  different  contractors  and  their 
estimates  have  been  averaged  for  purpose  of  comparison.  These 
Vv’ere  published  in  the  March  issue  of  the  Brickbuilder  (a  trade  jour¬ 
nal)  and  are  reproduced  in  Appendix  VII.  The  average  estimate  for 

9 


a  frame  building,  covered  with  clapboards,  was  $6759.95. 
average  increase  in  cost  for  other  types  was  as  follows : 

Second  Class  Construction. 

Stucco  on  frame  .  2.92  percent 

Brick  veneer  on  studding  . . . 5.83  ” 

Stucco  on  hollow  block .  6.34  ” 

Brick  veneer  on  boarding .  6.95  ’’ 

Ten  inch  brick  wall — hollow .  9.16  “ 

Brick  veneer  on  hollow  block . iO-77  ” 

The  owners  of  a  special  form  of  poured  concrete  construction 
state  that  by  their  method  a  six  room  house  has  been  built  at  ap¬ 
proximately  the  same  cost  as  for  the  cheapest  frame  construction 
and  that  the  cost  is  about  15  percent  less  than  if  constructed  with 
brick  walls. 

By  comparison  of  the  figures  given  here  and  in  Appendix  VII,  it 
will  be  seen  that  the  cost  of  a  second  class  building  need  not  be 
more  than  15  percent  above  the  cost  of  a  third  class  structure.  We 
have  obtained  expert  opinions  on  this  subject  and  are  convinced 
that  these  approximations  are  fairly  correct.  Furthermore,  taking 
into  account  the  life  of  a  third  class  building  as  compared  to  that  of 
a  second  class  building  and  comparing  the  amounts  which  must 
be  charged  off  every^  year  for  painting,  repairs  and  depreciation,  in 
the  course  of  twenty  years,  the  second  class  building  would  repre¬ 
sent  a  yearly  cost  materially  less  than  that  of  a  third  class  building.. 
It  is  difficult  to  give  exact  figures  representing  this  saving,  as  con¬ 
ditions  vary  so  widely,  but  in  Appendix  VIII  are  given  some  com¬ 
parisons  which  are  suggestive. 

It  is  therefore  the  confident  belief  of  this  committee  that  the 
suggested  prohibition  of  third  class  buildings  will  create  no  real 
hardship  upon  owners  or  lessees  of  property. 

In  an  address  delivered  by  Mr.  Frank  Lock  in  1909,  copy  of 
which  has  been  furnished  to  the  committee,  much  stress  is  laid  upon 
the  various  causes  of  fire  waste,  the  use  of  wood  in  outside  con¬ 
struction  and  particularly  upon  roofs  as  being  one  of  the  principal 
causes.  In  this  address,  it  is  stated  that  27  percent  of  fire  losses 
are  due  to  exposure — that  is  the  spreading  of  fire  from  one  build¬ 
ing  to  another.  If,  therefore,  it  is  possible  to  reduce  the  danger 
of  such  spreading,  the  public  interests  will  be  greatly  served.  This- 
we  believe  can  be  done  by  the  extension  of  the  building  limits,  as 
proposed. 


10 


First  Class  Buildings  in  Congested  District 

In  regard  to  first  class  buildings  in  the  congested  district,  this 
committee  is  willing  to  admit  that  looked  at  merely  as  a  matter  of 
first  investment,  first  class  construction  throughout  would  appear 
expensive.  But  in  a  city  like  Boston  the  desire  of  the  individual 
to  reap  a  large  return  on  his  investment  ought  to  be  subordinated 
to  the  rights  of  the  city  as  a  whole.  Every  great  fire  of  the  past 
has  shown  the  value  of  fireproof  buildings  to  stop,  or  at  least  limit, 
a  conflagration.  No  structure  is  absolutely  fireproof,  but  every 
fire  has  shov^m  that  it  is  perfectly  practicable  to  build  a  structure 
which  cannot  be  ruined  even  by  the  fiercest  fire,  which  is  seldom 
more  than  superficially  damaged,  and  whose  efficiency  as  a  fire 
check  has  been  thoroughly  demonstrated.  So  that,  while  the  in¬ 
sistence  upon  nothing  but  first  class  construction  in  the  congested 
district  may  be  regarded  by  some  as  a  hardship,  taking  the  city  as 
a  whole  it  would  be  a  decided  economy  for  the  community  by  vast¬ 
ly  reducing  the  number  and  extent  of  fires. 

Sprinklers  in  Existing  Second  Class  Buildings 

Those  citizens  who  now  have  dangerous  buildings  ought  to  bear 
the  burden  of  increased  cost  rather  than  their  neighbors  who  have 
safer  buildipgs,  on  which  •  the  insurance  rates  are  vastly  increased 
because  the  others  will  not  take  proper  precaution  against  the  spread 
of  fire.  The  recommendation  that  existing  second  class  buildings 
be  equipped  with  sprinklers  comes  as  a  natural  corollary.  We  can¬ 
not  get  full  benefit  of  the  conflagration  stop  afforded  by  a  first  class 
building  if  the  neighboring  buildings  remain  a  positive  menace.  We 
cannot  compel  the  removal  of  such  structures,  but  we  can  at  least 
make  them/  fairly  safe.  Nor  does  this  entail  a  real  hardship  on  the 
owners  of  such  property,  as  it  effects  a  yearly  saving  in  insur¬ 
ance  premiums  sufficient  to  pay  the  cost  of  the  sprinklers  in  a 
very  few  years.  See  Appendix  IX. 

Establishment  of  a  Fire  Bureau 

There  is  no  one  body  at  the  present  time  which  is  able  to  in¬ 
vestigate  properly  the  causes  of  and  to  fix  the  responsibility  for  fires,, 
as  would  be  a  Fire  Bureau  constituted  as  we  have  indicated.  We 
know  of  no  way  so  thoroughly  to  arouse  public  and  individual  ap¬ 
preciation  of  the  gravity  of  the  situation,  or  so  thoroughly  to  em¬ 
phasize  the  fact  that  the  great  majority  of  fires  are  due  in  the  last 
analysis  to  entirely  preventable  carelessness,  often  criminal  in  the 

II 


extreme,  as  to  fix  definitely  the  responsibility  and  give  fullest  pub¬ 
licity  to  every  fire — not  merely  by  perfunctory  reports  in  public 
documents,  but  by  statements,  of  facts,  names  and  findings  in  the 
daily  papers,  as  well  as  by  recommendations  to  the  proper  law  of¬ 
ficers  for  prosecution  of  ofifenders.  By  this  means  the  utmost  pub¬ 
licity  would  be  given  to  carelessness  or  criminal  negligence.  The 
Bureau  would  also  be  charged  with  the  duty  of  preparing  and 
publishing  regulations  which  would  minimize  the  effects  of  careless¬ 
ness,  provide  for  safety  of  life,  and  for  educating  the  public  in  the 
simpler  facts  and  methods  of  fire  protection. 

Insurance  Upon  Buildings  Not  Approved. 

The  principle  of  prohibiting  the  placing  of  insurance  upon 
buildings  not  formally  approved  is  not  an  innovation.  An  exactly 
similar  procedure  is  followed  now  in  the  use  of  gas,  electricity,  boil¬ 
ers  and  elevators.  Neither  the  gas  company  nor  the  electric  light 
company  is  allowed  to  supply  any  gas  or  current  until  the  installa¬ 
tion  has  been  approved  by  a  formal  certificate  from  the  proper  au¬ 
thority.  A  company  which  insures  a  boiler  not  up  to  stand¬ 
ard  is  liable  to  lose  its  license  to  do  business.  No  elevator  can  be 
operated  until  it  is  inspected  and  approved.  Let  us  apply  the  same 
principle  to  protection  against  fire,  and  prohibit  insurance  unless  the 
building  is  approved.  This  does  not  mean  that  a  mere  technical 
defect  or  violation  would  make  the  building  uninsurable,  but  simply 
that  it  must  pass  under  the  Fire  Bureau’s  supervision  before  the 
owner  can  purchase  indemnity  by  securing  an  insurance  policy.  Un¬ 
der  existing  conditions  any  kind  of  building  can  be  insured  at  a 
price,  no  matter  how  flagrantly  it  violates  the  laws  and  common 
prudence.  If  the  owners  of  such  property  appreciated  that  they 
could  not  thus  protect  themselves  they  would  be  very  likely  to  put 
their  premises  in  proper  order. 

High,  Pressure  Fire  Service 

A  report  has  recently  been  issued  by  the  National  Board  of  Fire 
Underwriters  on  “The  Desirability  of  a  High  Pressure  Fire  Sys¬ 
tem  in  the  City  of  Boston.”  It  emphasizes  the  fact  that  in  the 
business  district  which  is  the  fourth  largest  district  in  point  of  val¬ 
ue  in  the  country,  there  exist  conditions  which  may  breed  a  con¬ 
flagration  at  any  time.  It  states,  “There  are  large-area  blocks, 
with  crowded  and  poorly  accessible  interiors,  no  floor-opening  or 
window  protection  where  especially  needed  and  numerous  large 

12 


floor  areas,  affording  opportunity  for  the  rapid  spread  of  fire.  The 
narrow  streets  in  this  district  are  of  little  value  in  preventing  the 
spread  of  fire.” 

In  addition  to  the  reasons  set  forth  in  the  report  of  the  National 
Board  of  Fire  Underwriters,  the  Committee  favors  the  installa¬ 
tion  of  the  high  pressure  service  on  the  ground  that  the  present 
financial  condition  of  the  city  would  justify  the  expenditure  neces¬ 
sary  for  the  installation  of  this  system.  Furthermore,  the  insurance 
companies,  for  the  first  time,  are  willing  to  promise  a  definite  re¬ 
duction  in  the  insurance  rates  estimated  at  between  $100,000  and 
$125,000.  See  Appendix  XL 

The  experience  of  cities  where  a  high  pressure  service  has  been 
installed  illustrates  the  possibilities  and  advantages  of  such  equip¬ 
ments.  Philadelphia  has  used  its  system  for  nearly  eight  years,  and 
New  York  its  system  for  three  years.  The  superiority  of  the  high 
pressure  service  over  the  use  of  fire  engines  has  been  amply 
demonstrated. 

Adoption  of  Self-Propelled  Fire  Apparatus 

The  wisdom  of  adopting  self-propelled  fire  apparatus  has  been 
demonstrated  wherever  it  has  been  done.  We  advise  that  as  the 
present  machines  wear  out  they  be  replaced  by  self-propelled  ap¬ 
paratus,  for  the  simple  reason  that  such  would  be  more  readily  avail¬ 
able,  more  easily  controlled,  more  powerful,  require  less  space  for 
housing,  and  cost  less  to  operate.  For  a  brief  study  of  the  Bos¬ 
ton  Fire  Department  see  Appendix  XII. 

Conclusion 

No  one  can  reasonably  question  the  desirability  of  our  recom¬ 
mendations  from)  the  point  of  view  of  the  prevention  of  fire.  Fur¬ 
thermore,  measured  by  the  financial  standard  the  acceptance  of  the 
high  pressure  system  as  provided  by  Chapter  312  of  the  Acts  of  1911 
means  a  saving  of  at  least  $100,000  a  year,  in  insurance  premiums 
alone.  The  actual  possible  saving  beyond  this  is  altogether  prob¬ 
lematic  in  amount,  but  if,  by, virtue  of  the  saving  in  the  construc¬ 
tion  hazard  we  reduce  the  annual  fire  loss  only  to  that  of  the  best 
average  cited  for  any  American  city  (Philadelphia)  we  would  save 
$2.14  per  capita  ($3.60  less  $1.46)  or  over  one  and  one-quarter 
million  dollars  per  year  in  Boston  alone.  And  if  by  using  the  best 
endeavors  of  the  Fire  Bureau  as  outlined  in  this  report,  eliminating 
even  a  measure  of  carelessness,  we  succeed  still  further  in  cutting 

13 


down  our  annual  fire  loss  of  $3.60  to  only  twice  the  per  capita  loss 
in  Germany,  49  cents,  our  average  loss  would  then  be  98  cents  per 
capita,  a  saving  of  $1,834,000  per  year  on  a  population  of  700,000. 

We  make  no  specific  recommendation  in  regard  to  amend¬ 
ments  of  the  building  laws  as  such.  Many  suggestions  for  such 
amendments  have  been  made  to  us  and  there  are  undoubtedly  many 
improvements  possible,  but  there  are  several  committees  and  com¬ 
missions  which  are  giving  most  careful  study  to  this  subject  and  we 
feel  there  is  no  call  for  action  of  this  detailed  kind  by  this  commit¬ 
tee.  Such  action  would  only  complicate  a  situation  which  is  al¬ 
ready  enough  confused.  We  feel  that  the  best  way  to  meet  the 
situation  as  far  as  the  Boston  Chamber  of  Commerce  is  concerned  is 
for  this  committee  to  limit  its  recommendations  to  a  minimum  num¬ 
ber  of  absolutely  necessary,  broad,  fundamental  requirements.  If 
these  can  be  put  in  force,  minor  changes  in  the  building  and  fire  laws 
would  naturally  and  easily  follow.  Without  the  essential  changes 
recommended  any  tinkering  with  existing  laws  would  fail  to  give 
relief. 


Respectfully  submitted, 

COMMITTEE  ON  FIRE  PREVENTION, 

Clarence  H'.  Blackall,  Chairman, 
Edward  D.  Densmore, 

John  B,  Graham, 

Patrick  A.  O’Connell, 

Leslie  C.  Wead, 

Robert  S.  Coffin,  Secretary. 


14 


.  Appendices 


APPENDIX  L 


PART  I.— STATISTICS  OF  FIRE  LOSSES  IN  UNITED  STATES. 

Table  I. — Annual  Fire  Losses  in  the  United  States  for  Thirty-six  Years — 

1875-1910  Inclusive. 


(Statistics  gathered  by  the  National  Board  of  Fire  Underwriters.) 


Aggregate 

Property 

Year.  Loss. 

1875  . ?  78,102,285 

187G  64,630,600 

1877  68,265,800 

1878  64,315,900 

1879  77,703,700 

1880  74,643,400 

1881  81,280,900 

1882  84,505,024 

1883  100,149,228 

1884  .  110,008,611 

1885  102,818,796 

1886  104,924,750 

1887  120,283,055 

1888  110,885,665 

1889  . ;  .  123,046,833 

1890  108,993,792 

1891  143,764,967 

1892  151,516,098 


Aggregate 

Property 

Year.  Loss. 

1893  . ,.$167,544,370 

1894  .  140,006,484 

1895  .  142,110,233 

1896  .  118,737,420 

1897  .  116,354,575 

1898  .  130,593,905 

1899  .  153,597,830 

1900  .  160,929,805 

1901  .  165,817,810 

1902  .  161,078,040 

1903  .  145,302,155 

1904  .  229,198,050 

1905  .  165,221,650 

1906  .  518,611,800 

1907  .  215,084,709 

1908  .  217,885,850 

1909  .  188,705,150 

1910  .  214,003,300 


Table  2. — Conflagrations  Involving  Losses  of  $500,000  And  Over  Occurring 

In  1910. 


(Statistics  gathered  by  the  National  Board  of  Fire  Underwriters.) 

February  4  New  York  City,  N.  Y.,  Med.  Supply,  U.  S.  A. 

Dept . $ 


l6 


500,000 


March 

April 


May 

June 

July 

August 

October 


November 

December 


22  Pueblo,  Colo.,  Minnequa  Plant  of  Colo.  Fuel 

and  Iron  Co.,  Pattern  Storehouses  .  600,009 

5  Winlock,  Wash.,  Business  Portion  of  Town..  650,000 

24  Hambleton,  W.  Va.,  Tannery  .  800,000 

26  Phila.,  Pa.,  Oil  Warehouse,  Mantel  Factory 

and  Lumber  Yard  and  Mill  .  600,000 

3  Omaha,  Neb.,  Central  Gr.  Elev.  of  Nye- 
Schneider  Fowler  Co.,  Manly  Milling  Co.,  and 

Box  Cars  .  600,000 

9  Beaver  Falls,  Pa.,  Union  Drawn  Steel  Acme 
Mfg.  Co.  Plants  and  Acme  Typewriter  Mfg. 

Co .  500,000 

27  St.  Louis,  Mo ,  Brewery  Plant  of  Anheuser- 

Busch  Brewing  Association  .  530,000 

2  Ford  City,  Pa.,  Pittsburgh  Plate  Glass  . 

4  Kansas  City,  Kan.,  Peet  Bros.  Mfg.  Co.,  Soap 

and  Glycerine  Plant  . 1,500,000 

22  Elkhart,  Ind.,  C.  G.  Conn,  Band  Instrument 

Factory  .  500,000 

25  Bluff  Point,  N.  Y.,  Hotel  Champlain .  500,000 

28  Minneapolis,  Minn.,  Implement  Warehouses  750,000 

27  Paterson,  N.  J.,  Van  Dyke  Furniture  Store 

and  others  .  502,000 

Marinette,  Wis.,  Timber  Lands  and  Saw  Mills  1,200,000 

16  New  York  City,  S.  S.  Pier  and  Freight  (Met. 

S.  S.  Co.)  .  750,000 

Lakeview,  Ill.,  Grain  Elev.  and  Brewery _  600,000 

18  Wallace,  Idaho,  Half  the  Town  .  1,000,000 

9  Boston,  Mass.,  Blacker  &  Shepard  Lumber 

Yards  and  others  .  600,000 

17  Jersey  City,  N.  J.,  Truslow  &  Fulle  Cork 

Wks.,  and  oth^s  .  700,000 

24  Stevenson,  Wash.,  Saw  Mill  and  Standing 

Timber  .  600,000 

18  James  City,  Pa.,  American  Plate  Glass  Wks.  500,000 

20  E.  St.  Louis,  Ill.,  Chicago  &  Alton  R.  R. 

Freight  House  and  others .  500,000 

25  Superior,  Wis.,  Coal  Shed  and  Wharf .  500,000 

29  Topeka,  Kans.,  Storage  Yards  of  Atchison, 

Topeka  &  Kansas  R.  R .  500,000 

30  Omaha,  Neb.,  Creamery  and  Cold  Storage 

(Plant  of  Fairmount  Creamery  Co.)  .  600,000 

3  Phila.,  Pa.,  Cunningham  Supply  Co.,  Bldg., 

Block  and  Storage  Warehouse .  500,000 

27  Livingstone,  Ala.,  Sumter  Lumber  Plant  . . .  500,000 

6  Evansville,  Ind.,  H.  Feurich,  Cig.  Fcty.  and 

others  .  750,000 

21  Cincinnati,  O.,  Kippendorf  &  O’Neil,  Shoe 

Fcty.  and  Leather  Works  .  1,750,000 

22  Chicago,  Ill.,  Morris  &  Co.,  Meat  Pckg.  Plants  1,000,000 


Total  . ?  22,582,000 


Conflagrations  prior  to  1910  since  1866  983,234.135 


Total  for  period 

17 


$1,00'5,816,135 


Table  3. — Statistics  of  Fires  in  the  Ten  Largest  American  Cities,  According  to  Population.  1910. 

- Fires -  Loss,  Insured  and  Uninsured 


Loss  per  Capita 


Total 


50 

CO 

o 

50 

uo 

35 

rc 

50 

i—i 

t- 

•«o 

CO 

pH 

rH 

cq 

00 

I— i 

00 

pH 

S/S- 

cg 

iH 

1— I 

lO 

iH 

I— 1 

iH 

eg 

cq 

1—1 

CO 

uo 

o 

cq 

CO 

t- 

CO 

TC 

lO 

CO 

t- 

o 

rH 

rH 

to 

LO 

o 

t- 

50 

o 

CO 

C0_^ 

o 

eg 

eg 

o 

rf 

iH 

co" 

oo" 

lO 

r-T 

CO 

eg" 

35 

ccT 

35 

00 

LCO 

UO 

35 

eg 

t- 

C- 

lO 

o 

uo 

rH 

CO 

c- 

35 

o 

35 

00 

CO*' 

eg 

rH 

TO 

iH 

Contents 


Buildings 


35 

LO 

CD  eg  eg 

LO 

35 

rH  rH  CO 

LO 

35 

to  CO  LO 

^ 

to' 

t- 

00  00 

eg 

eg 

LO  rH  CO 

LO 

c- 

rH  CO  LO 

LO 

eg 

eg 

LO  CO  LO 

c- 

35  CO  t— 

eg 

CO  35  CO 

oo" 

e^ 

CO 

eg  05  t—  00 

o 

eg  CO  tH 

CO 

iH 

Extending  beyond  Adjoining  Buildings 


t-  O  iH  tH 

(M  LO 


Extending  to  Adjoining  Buildings  Only  . 
Confined  to  fioor  . 

Confined  to  building  o.r  place  of  origin 

Total  Number  of  Fires  . 

Population . 

Area,  Square  Miles . 


City 


l8 


CO  OO  t>-  eg  Tf 

CO  05  eg  eg  t>.  eg 

eg 


eo  o  tH 

o  LO  eo 

r— I  CO  Oi 

O  OO  — T 


CO 


03 

a 


3 

O' 

i=! 


03 

<V 

Sh 

cu 

•zs 


LO 

LO 

35 

CO 

pH 

35 

0 

id 

0 

I— 1 

00 

CO 

rH 

10 

CO 

LO 

0 

i—i 

ro^ 

00^ 

C5 

LO 

0 

CO 

co" 

to" 

eg" 

eg" 

1— 1 

rH 

rH 

pq 

s 

<4-4 

.V 

0 

LO 

O 

t- 

LO 

'CfH 

?q 

eg  CO 

'd 

o 

35 

1—1 

rH 

t- 

CO 

LO 

rH 

CO  00 

d 

-d 

CO 

tH 

LO 

00 

tH 

0 

-F 

O 

CO 

CO 

eg" 

eg" 

rH 

rH 

eg  t-T 

B 

id 

rH 

rH 

0 

CJ 

•  ^H 

pq 

CO 

CO 

00 

35 

LO 

CO 

LO 

LO 

CO  LO 

P^ 

00 

00 

CO 

eg 

00 

CO 

00 

0 

CO  rH 

d 

OO 

cg^ 

o 

0 

LO^ 

CO 

35^ 

IH 

d 

CO 

Lo" 

35  t- 

0" 

0 

00 

co" 

LO  CO 

d 

0 

CO 

00 

00 

t- 

CO 

LO 

CO 

CO  eg 

0 

•  ^ 

-1  j 

rH 

#v 

eg 

LO 

rH 

CO 

co 

LO 

LO 

LO 

Tfl  ’'C< 

pq 

d 

t- 

t- 

§ 

<D 

00  LO 

CO  LO 

LO 

05’ 

co 

rH 

0 

t-’ 

CO 

CO 

CD 

0 

LO 

rH  eg 

-t-> 

eg 

35 

eg 

CO 

CO 

CO 

Tl-i 

H 

CO  rH 

rH 

rH 

(d 

+j 

p*^ 

• 

«  • 

-(-> 

• 

•  • 

•  • 

(d 

dl 

'd 

d 

• 

• 

^  * 

d 

;h 

• 

• 

•  • 

(d 

d 

• 

• 

•  • 

•  • 

-i-> 

•  • 

be 

d 

d 

* 

d 

• 

• 

• 

• 

•  • 

•  • 

bfl 

^  • 

3 

13 

'O 

03 

•1— 1 

d 

0 

• 

• 

d 

d 

03 

0 

d 

•  • 

b/3  •  • 

5.1^  0 

•  pH 

nd 

d 

P-H 

0 

03 

0 

•  P^ 

U2 

cd 

1^ 

•pH 

rd 

0 

-4-> 

03 

0 

13 

> 

03 

t-H 

d 

p^ 

m 

4-> 

•pH 

2^ 
^  Cl«J 

0)  d 

d 

t-H 

* 

•  pH 

-M 

c3 

m 

Ph 

pq 

0 

pq 

pqQpq 

\ 


Loss  per  Capita 


> 

’w 

3  -O 

1  ^ 

•“  S  Total 

.S 

°  s 

o 
o 

O) 


£ 

O 

J5 

3 

Q. 

O 

0. 


£) 

£ 

-a 

I- 

o 

u 

o 

< 

4) 

3)  ,;r 

<Q 


(0 

V 


o 

> 


4> 

> 

< 

£ 

<0  ns 
ns  •— 


02 

02 

Sh 


0) 
E 
c  < 

4> 

0) 

D) 

i- 

ns 

-1 

£ 

0) 

h 

o 

-£ 


(0 

a> 


SSOiH^^DOOaO-^rHt^- 
CO  ?0  Irt  00  05  :D  !M 

c<i  tH  M  M  pH  r4  th"  M  M 

^3  X 

050"t-Ot^JO®5<X>IM 

UO-^^OSrtiC^OOOOosrH 

t>.C0S^t>"O5|55C^.^C<j 

T-^lO'^Tt^Ot^C-?500<^^ 

•'  ^*1  •N  •V  ^ 

QjTtiMpHijq  .-1^  — j 


CD 


Contents 


TS 

02 

Si 

3 

02 

£ 


02 

02 

O 

J 


lO 


o  so 

CO  O  t-  1— I 

O  00  C<J  CO 

•V  .r  •v 
CO  to  t'O 
Tt^  ^  00  ^ 
Tfi  "^-O  <M  CO 

c<r  p-T  K  *  *■ 

*  £  y  ^  ^ 


CO  "^^co 
00  ^  to 


Buildings 


LO  ^  to  05  ^  O  CO 
O  00  jv^  |>.  C50  oo  CO 
00  ”^T-I  1^-  OO  cvq  05 


t- 

to 

CO 

to 

(Cd 

C<J^ 

rH 

* 


to 

ir- 

00 


Extending  Beyond  Adjoining  Bldgs. 


Extending  to  Adjoining  Bldgs.  Only 


O  Confined  to  Floor 


Confined  to  Bldg,  or  Place  of  Origin 


00 

05 

<cq 

T— 1 

to 

00 

rH 

to 

tH 

o 

CO 

to 

CO 

to 

LO^ 

CO 

to 

00 

CO 

CO 

c- 

t- 

tH 

* 

3 

Q 

X 

* 

* 

* 

to 

t- 

CO 

(cq 

rH 

o 

(CQ 

3 

CO 

<cq 

rH 

cq 

* 

* 

3 

C2 

«• 

* 

05 

to 

(cq 

to 

pH 

rH 

05 

00 

to 

tH 

to 

<cq 

CO 

CO 

Hfl 

pH 

3 

tH 

3 

C2 

X 

* 

* 

* 

«• 

rH 

oq 

to 

05 

CO 

CO 

to 

pH 

CO 

oo 

rH 

to 

to 

CO 

CO 

to"  c<r 

T— 1 

•\ 

tH 

32 

><  £  3 

3 

3 

05 

to 

lO 

lO 

CO 

?q 

00 

05 

to 

pH 

r}^ 

t—i 

to 

CO 

05 

rjH 

05 

o 

t- 

I— 1 

<cq^ 

rH 

to 

't' 

CO 

00 

00 

•s 

«• 

lO 

CO 

oq" 

cq 

rH 

tH 

rH 

rH 

3  3 

3 

o 

X 

*• 


Total  No.  of  Fires 


t^c000»c^t050t>-t0t>- 
t^rHO'-.'t't-OOOCOlO 
to  CO  io  CO  CO  CO^ 

O  LO  CO  (C<r  CQ  tH  1— I  rH  P^  1— I 
tH  M 


Population 


Area,  Square  Miles 


O 

cq 

cq 

itH 

CO 

CO 

to 

o 

to 

05 

to 

hH 

LO 

05 

05 

o 

cq 

o 

to 

o 

05^ 

O 

to 

•s 

t-H 

»v 

to 

to^ 

cq 

00 

oT 

to 

CO 

CO 

cq 

Os" 

cq" 

cq 

cq" 

CO 

00 

rf 

CQ 

00 

cq 

CO 

t- 

t>- 

00 

00^ 

CO 

CC> 

to 

to 

to 

CO 

co 

CO 

pH 

•n 

tH 

X 

to 

05 

05 

O 

to 

CO 

o 

CO 

to 

to 

cq 

OS 

fH 

Ip 

tp 

CO 

o 

cq" 

cq 

cq 

05 

cq 

to 

CO 

cq 

CO 

Hhi 

CO 

Hfl 

CO 

rH 

pH 

V) 

o 

(0 

(0 

Xf) 

i 

S  City 

SI 

ns 

J“ 


£ 

o 

02 


oS 

•  rH 

,£ 
G 

P 

•rH  ‘fH 

35  Si 


02 

3 

O 

h:i 


■3 

3 

02 

> 

02 


O  Sh 

2  3  -HJ 

■-^3  “  ^ 


3 


02 


3 

?3 

3 


^oPLHMpqom^Qm 


*• 


IQ 


lyear;  x2  years;  xx  3  years;  **  5  years;  a  6  years;  1)7  years;  c8  years;  d9  years. 
Statistics  gathered  by  the  National  Board  of  Fire  Underwriters. 


PART  II.-— COMPARISON  OF  FIRE  LOSSES  IN  AMERICA  AND 

EUROPE. 


Table  I. — Fire  Losses  In  Six  European  Countries. 

(Statistics  gathered  by  the  National  Board  of  Fire  Underwriters.) 


Annual 

Popula- 

Loss  per 

Country 

Years. 

Average. 

tion,  1901. 

capita. 

Austria  . 

1898-1902 

$  7,601,389 

26,150,597 

$0.29 

Denmark  . 

1901 

&60,924 

2,588,919 

.26 

France  . 

190'(hl904 

11,699,275 

38,595,500 

.30 

Germany  . 

1902 

27,655,600 

56,367,178 

.49 

Italy  . 

1901-1904 

4,112,725 

32,449,754 

.12 

Switzerland  . 

1901-1903 

999,364 

3,325,023 

.30 

Average  loss  per 

capita  . . . . 

33  cents. 

Table  2. — Per  Capita  Fire  Losses  in  1907  in 

American  and 

European 

Cities, 

Classified 

According  to 

Population. 

(Statistics  for  the  United  States  gathered  by  the  Geological  Survey  and 

for  Europe  by  the 

Bureau  of  Manufactures.) 

Population. 

United  States 

Europe. 

Over  300,000  . 

...  $2.24 

$0.65 

100,000  to  300,000  .. 

. .  .  2.14 

.37 

50,000  to  100,000  . . . 

. . .  2.47 

1.67 

30,000  to  50,000  . 

. . .  3.28 

.72 

10,000  to  30,000  .... 

. . .  2.37 

.81 

Under  10,000  . 

...  3.47 

•  •  •  » 

Fire  Losses  In  America  and  European  Countries,  1910. 

(Statistics  gathered  by  the  National  Board  of  Fire  Underwriters.) 

Numb€;r  of 

Cities  Report-  Popula-  Per  Capita 


ing  Loss. 

tion. 

Loss. 

United  States  . . 

.  297 

29,996,723 

$2.39 

England  . 

.  11 

2,335,847 

.44 

France  . 

.  8 

4,392,529 

.92 

Germany  . 

.  13 

5,616,822 

.19 

Ireland  . 

.  2 

657,680 

.45 

Norway  . . 

.  1 

244,000 

.25 

Table  3. — Fire  Losses 

in  America  and  in 

European  Cities 

of  Th® 

Same  Size. 


(Statistics  gathered  by  Geological  Survey  and  Bureau  of  Manufactures. 
Each  of  the  Foreign  Cities  Is  Compared  With  the  American  City 
Marked  by  the  Same  Numeral.) 


European  Losses  for 

1904. 

City. 

Population. 

Fire  Loss. 

Loss  per 
capita. 

1 

Paris,  France  . 

...  2,714,500 

$1,266,282 

$0.47 

2 

Frankfort,  Germany  . . 

.  . .  324,500 

99,492 

.31 

3 

St.  Petersburg,  Russia 

. .  .  1,500,000 

2,128,541 

1.42 

4 

Birmingham,  England  . 

. . .  550,000 

226,506 

.41 

5 

Sheffield,  England . 

.  .  .  426,686 

75,989 

.13 

6 

Toulon,  France  . 

. ..  101,602 

55,391 

.55 

20 

‘ 

7 

Bremen,  Germany 

203,847 

78,372 

.38 

8 

Molenback,  Belgium  . 

63,678 

106,150 

1.67 

9 

Lalken,  Belgium  . 

31,121 

22,349 

.72 

10 

Etterbeck,  Belgium  . 

23,992 

19,504 

.81 

United  States  Losses 

for  1907. 

1 

Chicago,  Ill,  . 

2,049,185 

$3,937,105 

$1.43 

2 

Cincinnati,  Ohio  . 

345,230 

1,971,217 

5.70 

3 

Philadelphia,  Pa. 

1,441,735 

2,093,522 

1.45 

4 

Baltimore,  Md.  .  . . 

553,669 

916,603 

1.66 

5 

Cleveland,  Ohio  . . 

460,000 

515,194 

1.12 

6 

Atlanta,  Ga . 

104,984 

225,237 

2.15 

7 

St.  Paul,  Minn.  . . 

204,000 

522,447 

2.56 

8 

Evansville,  Ind.  . . 

63,957 

196,702 

3.08 

9 

Oskosh,  Wis . 

31,033 

80,500 

2.59 

10 

Easton,  Pa . 

25,238 

33,073 

1.27 

PART  ML— STATISTICS  OF  FIRE 

LOSSES  IN  BOSTON. 

Table  1. — Statement  of 

Fire 

Losses  In  Boston  For  Past  Ten 

Years. 

(Report  of  Boston  Fire  Department.) 

Year  ending  February 

1, 

1901 

.$1,702,217 

ff 

99  99 

1, 

1902 

1,830,719 

9f 

99  ^9 

1, 

1903 

1,762,619 

99 

99  99 

1, 

1904 

1,674,333 

99 

99  99 

1, 

1905 

2,473,980 

99 

99  99 

1, 

1906 

2,130,146 

99 

99  99 

1, 

1907 

1,130,334 

99 

99  99 

1, 

1908 

2,268,074 

99 

99  99 

1, 

1909 

.  .3,610,000 

99  >9 

1, 

1910 

1,680,245 

21 


APPENDIX  11. 


RESULTS  OBTAINED  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  BY  THE 
ASSOCIATED  FACTORY  MUTUAL  COMPANIES. 


It  has  been  suggested  in  the  report  that  introduction  of  certain 
preventive  measures  might  reduce  the  fire  loss  in  the  United 
States.  In  this  connection  it  is  interesting  to  note  the  results 
which  have  been  obtained  in  the  United  States  by  the  Associated 
Factory  Mutual  Companies.  The  basis  of  business  in  the  mutual 
companies  is  as  follows :  Each  person  who^  insures  agrees  ta 
certain  rules  and  regulations,  and  accepts  his  insurance  at  a  cer¬ 
tain  fixed  rate.  At  the  end  of  the  year  a  rebate  is  given  from 
this  rate,  depending  upon  the  extent  of  the  losses  which  have  oc¬ 
curred.  If  there  have  been  few  fires  a  large  rebate  results.  The 
reason  for  insuring  in  the  mutual  companies  is  to  obtain  a  low  rate 
of  insurance  and  also  freedom  from  fires.  The  mutual  companies,, 
however,  insist  upon  certain  rules  and  regulations  regarding  con¬ 
struction,  protection  and  maintenance  of  equipment,  which  are  in 
accordance  with  the  best  known  methods  of  fire  protection.  The 
fundamental  principle  of  the  mutual  companies’  protection  is  the 
use  of  automatic  sprinklers.  A  careful  system  of  inspection  is 
maintained  to  see  that  all  regulations  are  carried  out  at  all  times. 

The  buildings  which  are  insured  in  mutual  companies  are  not, 
in  general,  fireproof,  but  are  of  what  is  termed  “mill  construction” ; 
that  is,  brick  walls  with  wooden  interior,  the  wooden  construction, 
however,  being  in  accordance  with  certain  rules. 

From  year  to  year  the  fire  losses  in  the  mutual  companies 
have  become  smaller  and  smaller,  until  at  the  present  time  the  loss 
was  reduced  to  about  one  and  one-half  cents  for  each  $ioo 
covered  for  the  year  1909  in  the  Boston  Manufacturers  Company. 
Compare  this  with  the  average  loss  for  the  stock  companies  of 
the  United  States,  which  is  50  cents  for  each  $100  covered. 

It  is,  of  course,  not  practicable  to  apply  the  methods  of  the 
associated  companies  to  all  buildings  in  the  country,  but  an  appli¬ 
cation  of  these  principles  at  least  can  be  made  with  tremendous 
advantage.  From  such  figures  as  are  obtainable  from  the  stock 
companies  it  appears  that  the  average  loss  in  buildings  which  are 
sprinkled  runs  as  low  as  10  cents  per  $100  covered. 

This  illustration  is  cited  merely  as  indicating  the  possibilities 
that  may  be  obtained  from  protection. 


22 


APPENDIX  III. 


PROFITS  OF  INSURANCE  COMPANIES 
[Extract  from  the  Report  of  the  Illinois  Fire  Insurance 
Commission  to  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives, 
January  4,  1911.] 

The  premiums  received  by  licensed  fire  companies  in  the  United 
States  for  ten  years  ending  January  ist,  1908,  were  $1,982,122,000, 
and  the  losses  for  the  same  period  were  $1,170,804000.  The  ex¬ 
penses  were  $687,642,000,  making  a  total  for  losses  and  expenses  of 
$1,868,425,000.  The  difference  between  the  total  income  and  out¬ 
go  of  the  business  for  this  ten  year  period  is  only  $113,727,000, 
and  if  the  increase  in  the  unearned  premium  reserve  is  taken  into 
account  these  figures  show  that  for  the  ten-year  period  mentioned 
there  was  no-  underwriting  profit  on  the  business  as  a  whole. 
Again,  if  we  take  similar  statistics  for  any  ten-year  period  since 
statistics  have  been  kept  in  the  business,  we  are  unable  to  find  any 
period  where  the  aggregate  net  profits  have  exceeded  about  3  per¬ 
cent,  while  as  will  later  be  shown,  during  the  past  ten  years  in  the 
United  States  instead  of  being  a  net  profit  there  has  been  a  net  loss 
on  the  aggregate  sales  of  fire  indemnity. 

It  should  be  remembered  that  the  aggregate  profits  or  losses 
referred  to  are  purely  profits  or  losses  on  the  thing  sold,  namely, 
fire  indemnity  as  embodied  in  the  policies  issued,  and  that  in  most 
States  the  printed  conditions  of  these  policies  are  prescribed  by 
law ;  but  the  stock  fire  company  has  two  sources  of  income : 

First:  Net  profits  on  the  indemnity  sold  as  above  indicated. 

Second :  Interest  on  the  company’s  assets.  This  interest  is  di¬ 
visible  into  two  parts,  namely  interest  on  the  funds  paid  in  by  pol¬ 
icy  holders  which  have  not  yet  been  earned  either  by  payment  of 
loss  or  by  expiration  of  policies.  This  fund,  known  as  the  unearned 
premium  reserve,  is  maintained  by  every  company  under  the  statu¬ 
tory  requirements  of  the  several  States  in  which  it  transacts  busi¬ 
ness.  Taking  all  business  in  force,  annual  and  term,  this  fund  as 
required  by  law  would  probably  average  about  seventy  percent  of 
the  aggregate  annual  premiums,  though  the  companies  are  com¬ 
pelled  tO'  pay  cash  for  commissions  and  other  running  expenses,  av¬ 
eraging  say  forty  percent  of  the  premiums ;  hence  it  is  probably 
not  far  from  the  truth  to  assume  that  the  average  income  derived 
from  the  unearned  premium  fund  would  be  equivalent  to  interest 

23 


at  current  rates  upon  a  sum  equal  to  say  one-half  the  annual  pre¬ 
miums.  The  States  very  properly  scrutinize  the  character  of  the 
investments  of  the  companies,  and  the  rate  of  interest  is  necessarily 
low,  averaging  probably  not  more  than  4  percent  per  annum.  This 
would  yield  the  companies,  as  interest  upon  the  unearned  premium 
reserve,  say  2  percent  annually,  which  added  to  the  3  percent  prof¬ 
its  from  the  sales  of  indemnity  during  the  most  profitable  decades 
in  the  history  of  the  business,  would  leave  a  net  profit  to  all  com¬ 
panies  upon  all  business  of  not  over  5  percent.  This  estimate 
does  not  include  the  large  number  of  companies  that  have 
been  forced  out  of  business  by  city  conflagrations  or  other 
causes,  nor  the  companies  still  in  existence  that  have  had 
their  assets  depleted  or  destroyed  by  conflagrations  and 
have  made  the  impairment  good  by  contributions  from  stock¬ 
holders  or  by  sales  of  new  stock.  A  number  of  the  most 
prominent  stock  fire  companies  now  doing  business  in  this  country 
have  been  saved  from  destruction  in  this  way,  ana  so  far  as  the 
fire  companies  of  this  State  are  concerned,  the  Chicago  fire  wiped 
every  Illinois  company  out  of  existence,  while  the  San  Francisco 
fire  ruined  three  of  the  largest  Illinois  companies.  Two  of  these 
companies  passed  out  of  existence,  while  one  is  able  to  continue  in 
business  because  its  stockholders  heroically  restored  its  entire  as¬ 
sets  out  of  their  own  pockets.  It  is  facts  such  as  these  that  cause 
fire  underwriters  of  the  longest  experience  to  contend  that,  taking 
the  country  as  a  whole,  no  profit  has  been  made  from  the  sale  of 
fire  indemnity  during  the  past  fifty  years  or  since  statistics  have 
been  kept. 

Each  company’s  own  capital  stock  and  net  surplus  are  invested 
in  stocks  and  bonds,  and  as  before  stated,  these  investments  must 
pass  muster  with  the  State  authorities,  who  are  prompt  to  rule  out 
any  investments  of  doubtful  character.  The  high  character  of  in¬ 
vestments  thus  required  is  naturally  accompanied  by  a  reduced  in¬ 
come  from  the  dividends  and  interest  received  from  these  invest¬ 
ments.  The  income  derived  from  this  source  probably  does  not 
average  over  4  percent  on  the  aggregate  assets  of  the  companies.  By 
the  nature  of  their  liabilities  fire  companies  are  largely  debarred  from 
investing  in  real  estate  loans,  as  the  impending  danger  of  city  con¬ 
flagrations  compels  them  to  invest  in  securities  that  can  be  con¬ 
verted  into  cash  in  the  great  markets  of  the  country  on  very  short 

24 


notice.  Some  companies  have  been  notably  successful  in  investing 
their  funds  in  the  stock  market  and  in  this  way  have  made  more 
money  by  judicious  investments  than  they  have  made  from  under¬ 
writing  profit.  It  is  obvious  that  this  income  from  the  company’s 
own  assets  has  no  connection  with  the  transaction  of  fire  insurance, 
as  the  stockholders,  either  singly  or  collectively,  could  invest  their 
money  to  better  advantage  without  subjecting  it  to  the  restric¬ 
tions  of  State  control  or  to  the  perils  of  city  conflagrations  which 
now  and  then  consume  by  a  single  fire  the  greater  part  of  fire  in¬ 
surance  capital. 

So  far  we  have  been  describing  the  fire  insurance  business  as  a 
whole.  An  inspection  of  the  companies  severally,  indicates  that 
while  the  statistical  totals  show  a  net  profit  ranging,  according  to 
the  various  sources  of  information,  from  nothing  to  a  possible  max¬ 
imum  of  5  percent,  this  profit,  whatever  it  may  really  be,  has  been 
very  unequally  distributed  among  the  campanies.  An  examination 
of  the  reports  filed  with  the  Commission  shows  that  from  the  time 
of  the  Chicago  fire  to  the  present,  about  forty  years,  hundreds  of 
companies  have  failed  or  retired.  Possibly  no  fact  of  greater  sig¬ 
nificance  can  be  presented  in  this  connection,  than  the  statement 
made  by  Mr.  Charles  A.  Jenny,  F.  S.  S.,  in  the  publication  “Fire 
Insurance  by  States,”  1909,  that  from  1880  to  the  close  of  1908, 
912  fire  insurance  companies  retired  from  business  in  the  United 
States,  and  at  the  end  of  the  period  mentioned  only  162  stock  com¬ 
panies  were  reporting  to  the  New  York  department.  Of  the  com¬ 
panies  now  in  existence  worthy  of  consideration,  some  are  losing 
ground  and  evidently  destined  to  an  early  retirement.  Some  are 
barely  holding  their  own,  some  show  what  might  be  considered  a 
fair  growth,  while  a  few  seem  to  be  forging  ahead  at  a  rapid  pace. 
There  is  no  way  of  accounting  for  these  things  except  through 
what  would  be  a  tedious  and  profitless  analysis  of  the  financial 
statements  of  the  several  companies.  The  disparities  are  no  greater 
perhaps  than  can  be  found  in  other  forms  of  modern  activities  and 
may  probably  best  be  accounted  for  by  the  law  of  survival  found 
in  every  industry.  It  is  proper  to  point  out,  however,  the  significant 
fact  that  the  records  do  not  show  a  single  company  that  might  be 
considered  a  notable  success  which  has  begun  business  during  the 
past  thirty  years  and  done  business  on  its  own  responsibility,  with¬ 
out  the  backing  in  some  form  of  an  old  and  strong  company. 

25 


APPENDIX  IV. 


[CHAP.  312,  ACTS  OF  1911.] 

AN  ACT  TO  PROVIDE  FOR  A  HIGH  PRESSURE  FIRE 
SERVICE  IN  THE  CITY  OF  BOSTON. 


Be  it  enacted,  etc.,  as  follows: 

Sectioin  I.  The  commissioner  of  public  works  of  the  city 
of  Boston  is  hereby  authorized  to  prepare  plans  and  to  proceed  to- 
the  immediate  installation  of  a  suitable  and  efficient  system  of  higE 
pressure  fire  service  for  the  said  city. 

Section  2.  For  the  purpose  of  defraying  the  expenses  incur¬ 
red  under  the  provisions  of  this  act  the  city  council  may  appro¬ 
priate  during  the  ensuing  six  years  the  sum  of  one  million  dollars.. 
The  said  appropriation  shall  be  not  less  than  one  hundred  and  fifty 
thousand  dollars  for  each  year,  and  the  amount  which  the  city 
council  shall  thus  appropriate  in  any  one  year  shall  be  included  in 
the  statutory  limit  of  indebtedness  of  the  city  for  that  year. 

Section  3.  The  said  city  is  hereby  authorized  to  take  such 
quantities  of  water  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  proper  carrying 
out  of  the  purposes  of  this  act  from  the  Charles  river  basin.  It 
shall  also  be  authoized  to  purchase  or  to  erect  such  pumps  and  sta¬ 
tions  as  may  be  ..necessary  to  carry  out  the  purposes  of  this  act. 
The  work  of  building  such  pumping  stations  as  may  be  found  nec¬ 
essary  under  the  authority  of  this  act. shall  be  done  by  contract  pub¬ 
licly  advertised.  Not  more  than  fifteen  percent  of  the  indebted¬ 
ness  incurred  under  the  provisions  of  this. act  in  any  year  shall  be 
expended  for  day  labor. 

Section  4.  This  act  shall  take  effect  upon  its  acceptance  by 
the  city  council  and  mayor  of  the  city  of  Boston.  (Approved 
April  20,  1911.) 


26 


APPENDIX  V. 


BUILDING  LIMITS  AS  DETERMINED  BY  EXISTING 

ORDINANCE. 


The  building  limits  referred  to  in  section  eighteen  of  chapter 
419  of  the  acts  of  the  year  1892  are  established  as  follows :  All 
that  portion  of  the  city  which  is  included  within  a  line  beginning  * 
at  the  intersection  of  the  center  lines  of  Dover  and  Albany 
Streets,  and  thence  running  east  through  the  center  of  said 
Dover  Street  to  the  harbor  commissioners’  line,  thence  by  the  said 
harbor  commissioners’  line  around  the  northerly  portion  of  the 
city  to  a  point  on  Charles  River  at  vhe  intersection  of  said 
line  with  the  easterly  line  of  St.  Mary’s  Street  extended;  thence 
along  said  easterly  line  of  St.  Mary’s  Street  and  the  boundary  line 
between  Brookline  and  Boston  to  the  center  of  Longwood  Ave¬ 
nue  ;  thence  through  the  center  of  said  avenue  to  the  center  of  St. 
Alphonsus  Street;  thence  through  the  center  of  said  street  to  the 
center  of  Ward  Street;  thence  through  the  center  of  said  Ward 
Street  to  the  center  of  Parker  Street;  thence  through  the  center 
of  said  Parker  Street  to  the  center  of  Ruggles  Street;  thence 
through  the  center  of  said  Ruggles  Street  to  the  center  of  Wash¬ 
ington  Street;  thence  through  the  center  of  Washington  Street  to 
a  point  opposite  the  center  of  Palmer  Street;  thence  through  the 
center  of  said  Palmer  Street  and  through  the  center  of  Eustis 
Street  to  the  center  of  Hampden  Street;  and  thence  through  the 
center  of  said  Hampden  Street  and  the  center  of  Albany  Street 
to  the  point  of  beginning;  the  said  district  being  shown  on  a  plan 
made  by  the  city  surveyor,  dated  June  28,  1881,  and  deposited  in 
the  office  of  the  city  engineer. 


27 


APPENDIX  VL 


PHILADELPHIA  AND  NEW  YORK  BUILDING  LIMITS 


The  Philadelphia  building  law  of  1904,  Section  ii,  provides  that 
all  buildings  in  the  city  limits  shall  be  of  second  class  construction, 
namely,  non-combustible  exterior,  except  that  the  council  may  by  or- 
'  dinance  permit  the  construction  of  frame  buildings  in  the  rural  por¬ 
tions.  The  ordinance  under  which  the  city  is  working  is  apparently 
that  approved  in  March,  1894.  This  as  amended,  permits  of  third 
class  structures  only  in  portions  of  the  21st,  27th,  and  35th  wards. 
No  permit  can  be  granted  for  such  buildings,  unless  the  applicant 
shall  have  the  consent  in  writing  of  at  least  two-thirds  of  the  ad¬ 
joining  or  abutting  property  owners  on  both  sides  of  the  street, 
and  it  is  not  allowable  to  enlarge  a  frame  building,  to  remove  any 
such  building  to  an  adjoining  lot,  or  to  repair  or  reconstruct  any 
frame  building,  which  has  been  injured  more  than  50  percent  of 
its  original  value  by  wear  and  tear  or  by  effects  of  elements  or  by 
fire.  A  wooden  building  in  this  area  must  not  exceed  45  feet  in 
height.  Wooden  buildings  must  be  separated  by  at  least  three  feet 
or  by  brick  walls,  and  any  building  used  for  other  than  dwelling 
house  purposes  must  be  at  least  10  feet  from  any  other  building  25 
feet  or  more  in  height,  and  at  least  four  feet  from  a  building  less 
than  25  feet  in  height. 

The  ordinance  thus  practically  prohibits  third  class  buildings 
in  all  but  an  extremely  small  portion  of  the  city.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  it  is  the  exception  to  find  in  Philadelphia  wood  houses  under 
construction. 

The  designation  ‘Tre  limits’’  is  used  in  New  York  to  designate 
the  district  within  which  no  frame  or  wooden  structure  shall  be 
built.  In  the  Borough  of  Manhattan  it  includes  all  of  the  portion 
south  of  165th  Street  and  the  Harlem  River.  In  the  Bronx  it 
includes  the  district  roughly  bounded  by  the  extreme  northerly 
point  of  Manhattan.  In  Brooklyn  the  line  is  quite  irregular,  but  is 
carried  out  as  far  as  Flatbush  Avenue  in  one  direction,  and  includes 
the  30th  Ward.  In  the  Borough  of  Queens  the  district  includes 
the  area  bounded  by  Newton  Creek,  Not  Avenue,  the  East  River 
and  westerly  line  of  Van  Alst  Avenue.  A  great  deal  of  the  prop¬ 
erty  included  in  these  limits  was  within  a  very  few  years  occupied 
as  farm  land.  Practically  the  whole  of  the  Island  of  Manhattan, 
the  major  portion  of  the  Bronx  and  Brooklyn,  and  considerable 
section  of  Queens,  are  thus  safeguarded  against  buildings  con¬ 
structed  with  exterior  of  inflammable  material. 


28 


APPENDIX  VIL 


THE  COST  OF  A  HOUSE. 


A  Comparison  of  Brick,  Wood,  Cement,  and  Hollow  Block 

Construction. 

By  J.  Parker  B.  Fiske. 


There  can  be  little  doubt,  even  in  the  mind  of  the  casual  ob¬ 
server,  that  Brick  is  a  very  desirable  material  with  which  to  build 
a  house.  The  public  has  gradually  come  to  realize  the  enormous 
loss  by  fire,  the  excessive  repairs,  the  rapid  depreciation  and  the 
discomfort  in  both  summer  and  winter  arising  from  frame  con- 

4 

struction,  and  to  appreciate  the  fact  that  the  House  of  Brick  is  not 
only  fireproof,  but  that  it  requires  no  painting,  that  it  does  not  de¬ 
cay  or  depreciate,  and  that,  of  all  types  of  construction,  it  is  the 
most  beautiful. 

How  is  it,  then,  that  America  has  continued  so  long  to  build  her 
houses  of  wood,  while  the  older  countries  of  Europe  abandoned  this 
type  of  construction  many  generations  ago  ? 

An  answer  may  be  found  in  conversation  with  almost  any  intel¬ 
ligent  man  or  woman — ‘‘The  first  cost  of  the  Brick  House  has 
been  prohibitive.’’ 

However  true  this  opinion  may  have  been  a  generation  ago,  or 
however  natural,  today,  to  a  people  born  and  reared  in  a  land  of 
wooden  houses,  it  no  longer  holds  good. 

Conditions  have  changed ;  wood  is  no  longer  cheap ;  our  forests 
have  receded  from  civilization  and  have  dwindled  in  size  until  frame 
construction  costs  almost  as  much  as  Brick — until,  with  its  *^up- 
keep,”  it  costs  more. 

A  great  majority  of  the  American  people,  however  who  enjoy 
to  the  largest  extent  the  benefits  of  human  ingenuity  and  skill  in 
other  matters,  are  still  denying  themselves  the  advantages  of  a  su¬ 
perior  material  for  the  construction  of  their  homes  because  of  a 
mistaken  idea  as  to  its  relative  cost. 

It  is  time,  therefore,  that  the  present-day  facts  be  made  public 
in  a  clear  and  logical  manner,  that  all  may  know  the  truth. 

In  order  to  prepare  an  accurate  statement  regarding  the  relative 
costs  of  different  styles  of  construction,  the  writer  has  instituted  a 

29 


careful  investigation,  in  which  all  variable  quantities  were  eliminated 
and  a  bona  fide  bid  obtained  for  the  construction,  in  a  given  locality, 
of  a  series  of  houses,  each  one  exactly  like  the  others  in  every  par¬ 
ticular  except  the  outer  walls,  which  in  the  several  houses  were  to 
be  constructed  of  the  several  materials  we  wish  to  compare,  i.  e., 
Brick,  wood,  cement  and  hollow  block. 

Lest  a  single  contractor  might  make  an  error,  or  for  some  rea¬ 
son  be  unduly  favorable  to  one  material  as  against  another,  we  have 
secured  simultaneous  bids  from  several  equally  reliable  contractors. 
While  the  several  figures  on  the  Brick  House  vary  considerably 
among  themselves,  as  is  inevitable  with  competitive  bids,  the  rela¬ 
tive  figures  on  Brick,  wood,  etc.,  are  about  the  same  in  the  case  of 
one  contractor  as  of  another,  and  the  average  gives  a  fair  and  truth¬ 
ful  conclusion. 

In  making  this  investigation,  a  little  modern  eight-room  house, 
of  good  design  and  excellent  arrangement  was  chosen,  the  original 
having  been  actually  built  near  Boston,  Mass.,  under  the  direction 
of  Thorndike  &  Kiessling,  architects. 

This  house  is  typical  in  size,  arrangement  and  cost  of  thousands 
of  houses  which  are  being  erected  throughout  the  East. 

The  architects  were  commissioned  to  prepare  the  plans  and  spec¬ 
ifications  necessary  for  obtaining  bids  for  this  house  when  built  with 
the  following  types  of  exterior  wall  construction,  all  other  details 
being  common  to  all  types : 

Description  of  Various  Types  of  Outer  Wall  Construction. 

Type  I.  Frame  covered  with  boards  and  finished  with  clapboards 
over  building  paper;  inside  surface  furred,  lathed  and 
plastered. 

Type  2.  Frame  covered  with  boards  and  finished  with  shingles 
over  building  paper;  inside  surface  furred,  lathed  and 
plastered. 

Type  3.  A  lo-inch  Brick  wall,  i.  e.,  two  4-inch  walls  tied  together 
with  metal  ties  and  separated  by  a  2-inch  air  space;  in¬ 
side  surface  plastered  directly  on  the  Brick  work.  Face 
Brick  to  cost  $17.50  per  M. ;  inside  Brick,  $9.00  per  M. 

Type  4.  A  12-inch  solid  Brick  wall;  inside  surface  furred,  lathed 
and  plastered.  Face  Brick  to  cost  $17.50  per  M. ;  in¬ 
side  Brick,  $9.00  per  M. 

30 


Type  5.  Eight-inch  hollow  terra  cotta  blocks,  stuccoed  on  the  out¬ 
side  and  plastered  directly  on  the  inside. 

Type  6.  Six-inch  hollow  terra  cotta  blocks,  finished  with  a  4-inch 
Brick  Veneer  on  the  outside  and  plastered  directly  on 
the  inside.  Face  brick  to  cost  $17.50  per  M. 

Type  7.  Frame  covered  with  boards  and  building  paper,  furred  and 
covered  with  stucco  on  Clinton  wire  cloth;  inside  sur¬ 
face  furred,  lathed  and  plastered. 

Type  8.  Frame  covered  with  boards  (building  paper  omitted),  and 
finished  with  a  4-inQh  Brick  Veneer  on  the  outside;  in¬ 
side  surface  furred,  lathed  and  plastered.  Face  Brick 
to  cost  $17.50  per  M. 

Type  9.  Frame  finished  on  the  outside  with  a  4-inch  Brick  Veneer 
tied  directly  to  the  studding  (boarding  omitted)  ;  inside 
surface  furred,  lathed  and  plastered.  Face  Brick  to  cost 
$17.50  per  M. 

A  separate  drawing  showing  the  details  of  each  type  of  outer 
wall  construction  was  prepared,  and  each  was  accompanied  by  a  set 
of  complete  specifications  for  the  entire  house. 

Everything  about  the  house,  except  the  outer  wall  construction, 
^  vvas  identical  in  all  nine  types,  and  may  be  briefly  covered  by  the 
following  table : 

Details  Common  to  All  Types. 

A — ^^Foundations  . . Local  Stone. 

B — Cellar  Floor. Finished  with  2-inch  concrete  of  Portland  cement. 

C — Chimney . .  .Faced  with  Brick  costing  $17.50  per  M. 

D — Fireplaces . Faced  with  Brick  costing  $17.50  per  M. 

E — Plastering . First-class  “two  coat”  work. 

F — Exterior  Finish . .  Cypress 

G — Blinds . . White  Pine 

H — Screens . Copper  bronze  on  white  pine  frames. 

I — Window  Frames . Hard  Pine 

J — Floors . Double  floors  throughout,  with  paper  between,  ex¬ 

cept  in  unfinished  attic;  Georgia  pine  upper 
floors ;  main  hall  on  first  floor  of  oak. 

K — Inside  Finish . . North  Carolina  Pine 

L — Doors . Washington  Cedar. 

M — Hardware . Bronze  finish  of  ordinary  type,  costing  $60.00 

for  the  job. 


31 


O — Conductors .  Copper, 

P — Flashing .  Tin, 

Q — Electric  Fixtures . Costing  $8o.cx). 

R — Hot  Water  Heating . Costing  $250.00  complete. 

S — Wiring  . Costing  $68.00, 

T — Plumbing  . Costing  $370.00. 

U — Painting . Exterior  and  interior;  clapboard  house,  $225.00; 

other  houses,  $130.00. 

V — Glazing . Double  thick  German  glass. 

Note : — Shades,  kitchen  range  and  tile  work  not  included. 

The  following  local  contractors  of  well  known  reputation  and 
experience  were  then  selected : 


W.  F.  Kearns  Company . Boston 

McDonald  &  Joslin  Company . Boston 

P.  H.  Jackson  and  Son  Co . Brockton 

R.  D.  Donaldson . Lincoln 

J.  T.  Wilson  &  Son . Nahant 


Each  was  fully  advised  of  the  object  of  this  investigation,  and 
was  asked  if  he  was  willing  to  undertake  the  preparation  of  figures 
which  should  truthfully  set  forth,  to  the  best  of  his  ability,  the  costs 
(including  his  profit;,  of  houses  to  be  built  within  ten  miles  of 
Boston,  according  to  these  several  plans  and  specifications.  Each 
was  told  that  we  desired  to  know  the  exact  truth ;  if,  as  alleged  by 
some  contractors,  the  cost  of  a  Brick  Hjouse  is  25  to  30  percent 
more  than  one  of  wood,  then  we  wished  to  know  it,  as  nothing 
could  be  gained  by  an  investigation  of  this  kind  which  was  biased 
or  influenced  by  any  favoritism  for  one  type  over  another. 

Each  contractor  entered  into  the  spirit  of  the  investigation 
heartily,  and  agreed  to  figure  out  the  cost  fairly,  to  the  best  of  his- 
ability. 

Each  contractor  was  given  the  same  information  and  instruc¬ 
tions,  and  each  took  plenty  of  time  to  figure  the  entire  house  with 
care. 

The  following  are  the  bids  submitted  by  the  five  contractors 
in  question,  arranged  without  reference  to  the  above  order  of  names, 
each  bidder  standing  ready  to  enter  into  a  contract  for  the  house 
in  question  at  the  figures  submitted: 

3^ 


(f) 

Q 

m 

lij 

> 

I- 

< 

a: 

< 

CL 

E 

o 

o 


05 


00 


lO 


M 


<M 


O 

;2; 

<D 


<y 

;-i 

m 


o 

S-i 

« 


a 

o 

;h 

oi 

(D 

a 

;> 

o 

;-i 

OI 

d 

<D 


W) 

a 

d 

4-J 

w 


be 

d 

'd 

efi 

o 

W 


d 

o 

o 

a 

c 

d 

-M 

m 


(D 

a 

u 


a>  ^ 

d  o 

(H  -H  ^ 

>  O  O 

ffi-2 
m 


o 

!h 

m 


d 

o 

d 

o 

o 

o 

o 


o  o 


m 


o 

s 


d  *1-1 


d 
d 

o 

CQ 


isi  ^  ^ 

d  .a  d  ;zl 


a> 

I— H 

bJD 

d 

•  r^ 

dS 

U2 


d 

;-i 

d 

o 

dJ 

ft 

d 


O 


Q.  . 

o  2 

H 


co 

liJ 

Q 


00 

00 


o  o  o 
o  o  o 


00 

05 


O  TjH  LO  O  O  CO 

00  5D  05  M  tH  lO 

o  CD  00  t- 

CO  CD 
CO- 


O  O  O  O  O 

O  M  O  O  O 

O  CD  O  CO  O  CD 

CO  t-  05  05  C<I 

tH  t>  05  Tt*  t^- 

t>r  CD  CD  t-*'  t> 

ee- 


o  o  o  o  o  o 

O  O  lO  O  O  05 

t>-'  o  o  o  oci 

U5  tH  O  U5  LO 

00  00  O  CD  05 

as 

CD  CD  CD  l>*  tr^  CD 
©9- 


O  CO  O  ft)  o  CD 

ft)  OO  O  O  o  t-H 

(Cq  00  oo’  ft)  CO 

I>*  CD  CO  '=+1  05  OO 

I>-  t>-  C^  CD  05_^ 

t>-  CD  I>-  l>-  l>* 

so¬ 


ft  CO  ft)  O  O  LO 

ft)  cq  ft  ft)  ft)  CD 

CD  rH  05  (Cq  ft" 

I  05  ft  U5  OO 

Tfi  tH  cq  CD  th 

t>r  CD*"  t>^  t>- 

ee- 


so¬ 


ft 

<ft 

(cq 

t- 

lO 

S9- 


6©- 


S9- 


ft 

ft 

ft 

o 

o 

ft 

ft 

ft 

ft 

o 

ID 

00 

rH 

ft 

M 

ft 

rH 

ft 

Tf 

rt< 

00  cq 

ft 

t-' 

00  c* 

CO 

ft 

ft 

ft 

00 

ft 

ft 

ft 

CD 

00 

CD 

ft 

cq 

CO  iH 

05 

t- 

tH 

’’f 

05 

CO 

cd' 

t-' 

t- 

t-’ 

ft 

ft 

ft 

o 

ft 

• 

ft 

oo 

ft  CD 

• 

ft 

o6 

t-  00 

LD 

CD 

CO 

OO 

cd' 

cd' 

• 

t-  CD 

CD 

ft 

ft  ft  ID 

O  ft 

ft 

o  ^ 

ID 

cq 

ft 

ft 

05 

CO  05 

05 

ID 

ID 

cq 

CD  CD 

CD  CD 

CD 

CD 

• 

• 

. 

X/1 

d 

• 

• 

•rH 

• 

• 

• 

• 

ad 

r^  oq  CO  ID 

d  d  d  d  d 

d  d  d  d  d 


CM 

O 

<D 

bo 

d 

a» 

> 


(0 

Q 

CQ 

LU 

> 

I- 

< 

QC 

< 

0. 

E 

o 

o 


U) 

d 

t_ 

re 

o 

Si 

a. 

_re 

O 

S- 

aq 

> 

O 

«> 

ft 

>^ 

I- 

JC 

o 

re 

UJ 


(0 

o 

O 

(0 

(O 

a> 

o 

X 

UJ 

V 

D) 

re 

■M 

£ 

0) 

o 

u 

«i 

0. 


05 


00 


CD 


lO 


cq  pq  CQ  CQ  m 


CO 


cq 


o 

Iz: 

q; 

ft 


o 

(h 

pq 


d 

o 

Li 

<D 

O) 

d 

<V 

> 


bO 

d 

*rH 

d 

d 

d 

-M 


S  ^ 
o  S-s 

•n 

m  g  d 


d 

o 

o 

c; 

a 

d 

-M 

U1 

o 

d 

w 

d 

o 

d 

o 

o 

u 

c; 


a; 

a 

d 

fa 


o 

m 


d  PQ 

-M  HH 

m 


o 

o 


a 


« 

o 


aw 

<M  PQ 


d.a 

d  L. 

O  CQ 


d 


d 

»r^ 

O 

m 


d 


O 

d 

w 


O) 

bo 

d 

•  ^H 

ad 

U1 


d 

M 

d 

o 

ad 

ft 

6 


PC 


o2 

CO 

Ui 

Q 


C<J  05  C5  05  ID  DO 
ID  Cd’  CO*  ft  CO  ID 


05  (M  cq  ft  CD  05 
ID  00  (Cq  r}H  CD 


05  00  CO  CD  tr-  05 

tH  <m"  cq  oq  oq 


ID-Iit^cqcocqt^ 
ID  OO"  00  ■^*  f>-  ft) 


cq  iH  CO  t-;  CO 
o'  cq’  CD 


05  00  CD  CD  ft 
CO  ft’  CD  ft  CO 


ID  ft  rH  ft)  CD  tH 
cq’  00  CD*  cq  CD  05* 


rH  Tti 

cq  tH 


ft  CD 


ft  ft  ft  ft  ft  ft 


U9 

d 


tH  cq  eo  ID 

6  d  o’  6  o’ 

d  d  d  d  d 


PQ  CQ  pq  CQ  CQ  <1^ 


«M 

O 

o 

bO 

d 

Li 

o 


33 


In  making  up  his  figures,  one  contractor  used  the  following: 

Price  of  Materials. 

Lime  . . $i.oo  per  bbl.,  200  lbs. 

Portland  Cement . $1.60  per  bbl. 

Spruce  Framing  . $26.00  per  M.  ft.  B.  M. 

North  Carolina  Pine . ic.  per  inch  per  ft. 

Georgia  Matched  Pine  (first  quality) . $75-00  per  M.  ft.  B.  M. 

Shingles  . $4-75  per  M. 

Clapboards  . $55-oo  per  M. 

Hemlock  Boarding . $22.00  per  M.  ft.  B.  M. 

6-inch  Hollow  Blocks . 10  i-2c.  per  sq.  ft. 

8-inch  Hollow  Blocks . 14c.  per  sq.  ft. 

Face  Brick  . $17*50  per  M. 

Common  Brick  . $9.00  per  M. 

Allowance  for  Furring,  Lathing,  and  Plastering. ..  .5c.  per  sq.  ft. 

Wages  of  Bricklayers . . . 60c.  per  hour. 

Wages  of  Carpenters . 50c.  per  hour. 

Upon  inquiry  we  have  found  much  reliable  evidence  to  corrobo¬ 
rate  our  figures.  We  are  permitted  to  refer  to  three  investigations 
conducted  by  other  parties  in  different  parts  of  the  country,  as 
follows : 

Mr.  Willliam  D.  Austin,  the  well-known  Boston  architect,  hav¬ 
ing  made  a  careful  investigation  of  comparative  costs  on  a  $10,000 
house,  makes  the  following  statement: 

“The  exterior  walls  are  of  brick  8  inches  thick,  with  wooden 
furring  strips  against  the  inner  surface,  on  which  the  lath  and  plas¬ 
ter  are  applied. 

“The  cost  of  this  brickwork,  including  the  necessary  furring  and 
the  somewhat  more  expensive  window  frames  and  finish  required 
would  be  about  $1,200.  The  exterior  walls,  if  in  frame  with  shin¬ 
gles  or  clapboards,  would  cost  about  $600  less,  and  if  in  frame  with 
metal  lathing  and  cement  plaster,  about  $500  less.  In  other  words, 

if  the  total  cost  of  the  house  in  brick  is  $10,000,  the  saving  in  wood 
would  be  six  percent  and  in  cement  plaster  five  percent. 

“The  figures  here  given  are  based  on  carefully-made  estimates 
which  were  obtained  from  reliable  contractors,  and,  generally  speak¬ 
ing,  represent  the  comparative  cost  of  wood,  stucco  and  brick 
walls.” 

Mr.  Austin’s  figures  are  rather  more  favorable  to  the  use  of 

34 


brick  than  are  ours,  which  confirms  the  impartiality  of  our  investi¬ 
gation  and  the  conservatism  of  our  conclusions. 

Mr.  W.  E.  Dunwody,  of  Macon,  Ga.,  makes  the  following 
statement : 

“In  January,  1910,  I  let  a  contract  for  a  Brick  Veneered  House, 
in  which  I  specified  local  Face  Brick  at  $15  per  M.  I  found  from 
actual  experience  that  a  Brick  Veneered  House  cost  only  about 
five  percent  more  than  a  corresponding  frame  house.  Of  course, 
the  frame  house  could  be  cheapened  by  making  the  foundations 
lighter  and  by  using  an  inferior  grade  of  lumber,  but  that  would 
make  an  inferior  house  and  would  not  be  a  fair  comparison.  The 
man  who  wishes  to  build  as  cheap  a  house  as  possible  is  not  inter¬ 
ested  in  this  discussion.” 

Perhaps  the  most  convincing  verification  of  our  figures  is  that 
contained  in  a  letter  from  Hansberger  &  Livingstone,  of  Columbus, 
Ohio,  who  for  fifteen  years  have  been  engaged  in  the  building  of 
moderate-sized  detached  houses  for  sale.  They  state  as  follows: 

“We  have  built  about  six  hundred  houses  in  the  city  of  Colum¬ 
bus.  The  first  year  we  built  entirely  of  frame,  the  second  year 
about  half  Brick  and  half  frame,  and  then  we  figured  out  the  cost 
between  the  Brick  and  the  frame  houses,  and  we  found  that  the 
actual  difference  did  not  exceed  $400  on  a  $5,000  house,  or  about 
eight  percent  more  for  brick  than  for  frame. 

“We  build  most  of  our  houses  with  a  9-inch  wall  and  a  one-inch 
air  space,  tying  the  two  walls  together  with  metal  ties  and  furring, 
lathing  and  plastering  on  the  inside. 

“Taking  the  saving  in  insurance,  heating  and  painting  on  the 
Brick  house,  we  have  found  that  there  is  really  no  difference  in  the 
cost  of  the  houses  at  the  end  of  a  few  years,  and  we  now  build 
Brick  Houses  almost  altogether. 

“When  we  come  to  sell  the  house,  we  find  that  we  can  always 
get  about  $1,000  more  for  the  Brick  house  than  for  the  frame  house 
on  account  of  the  beauty,  durability  and  economy,  which  always 
seems  to  speak  for  itself.  The  Brick  House  looks  so  much  more 
substantial  than  the  frame  house  that  we  use  Brick  every  time. 

“The  Brick  House  is  much  cooler  in  summer  than  the  frame 
house,  and  we  have  tested  the  heating  in  winter  and  have  found 
that  it  takes  33  1-3  percent  more  fuel  for  a  frame  house  than  it 
does  for  one  of  Brick.” 


35 


APPENDIX  VIIL 


COST  OF  MAINTENANCE  ON  HOUSES  OF  SECOND 
AND  THIRD  CLASS  CONSTRUCTION. 


An  estimate  of  the  probable  yearly  charge-off  and  repairs  on  a 
dwelling  of  third  class  construction,  namely,  all  of  wood,  and  on  a 
dwelling  of  the  same  size,  character  of  finish,  etc.,  but  of  second 
class  construction,  namely,  with  exterior  of  incombustible  material : 

I.  Third  class  dwelling  covering  about  1500  sq. 
ft.,  two  and  a  half  stories  and  cellar.  Cost,  $10,000. 


Estimated  efficient  life,  20  years. 

Annual  charge-off  with  interest  at  4  percent . $736. 

Repairs,  painting,  etc .  250. 


Total  per  year . $986. 

2.  Cost  of  house  of  same  dimensions,  but  of  sec¬ 
ond  class  construction,  $11,500.  Estimated  efficient 
life,  40  years. 

Annual  charge-off  with  interest  at  4  percent . $580.75 

Repairs  and  painting  about .  100.00 


Total  per  year . $680.75 


The  cost  per  year  on  the  above  basis  for  a  third  class  building 
is  $305.25  more  than  than  of  a  second  class  building,  an  increase 
of  45  percent.  ^ 

Applying  the  same  reasoning  to  the  ordinary  three  tenement 
house  of  which  so  many  are  built  in  our  suburbs,  the  comparison 
would  be  as  follows : 

I.  Three  tenement  house  entirely  of  wood  or 
third  class  construction,  approximate  cost,  $6500. 


Estimated  efficient  life,  20  years. 

Annual  charge-off  with  interest  at  4  percent . $478.40 

Repairs  and  painting .  150.00 


Total  per  year . $628.40 


2.  Cost  of  house  of  same  dimensions,  but  of  sec¬ 
ond  class  construction,  $7500.  Estimated  efficient 
life,  30  years. 

Annual  charge-off  with  interest  at  4  percent. . .  .$423.50 


Repairs  and  painting .  75-00 

Total  per  year . $498.50 


In  this  case  the  cost  per  year  for  the  third  class  building  is 
$129.90  or  26  percent  greater  than  that  of  the  second  class  building. 

Figures  such  as  these  can  be  only  suggestive,  and  it 
would  be  almost  impossible  to  establish  anything  like  exact  ratios 


of  cost  of  maintenance,  length  of  available  life,  or  amount  of  de¬ 
preciation,  as  these  do  not  depend  wholly  on  the  nature  of  the  con¬ 
struction,  but  are  much  modified  by  exposure,  character  of  occu¬ 
pancy  and  by  the  frequency  of  change  in  tenants.  But  the  figures 
are  at  least  a  justification  of  the  conviction  held  by  many  experts, 
that,  taking  everything  into  account,  a  building  of  second  class 
construction,  will  wear  better,  last  longer  and  usually  cost  less 
in  the  long  run,  than  a  similar  building  of  third  class  construc¬ 
tion,  with  combustible  exterior.  The  continued  construction  of 
wooden  buildings  would  therefore  seem  to  be  a  mistake  from 
the  standpoint  of  cost,  of  use  as  measured  by  length  of  life,  and 
above  all,  of  the  fire  hazard. 


37 


APPENDIX  IX. 


SPRINKLER  INSTALLATIONS. 


The  fundamental  reason  for  the  suggestion  that  automatic 
sprinklers  be  installed  in  second  class  buildings  within  the  fire  lim¬ 
its,  is  the  prevention  of  conflagration  hazards.  When  the  regula¬ 
tions  which  are  suggested  in  the  report  are  put  in  force,  only  first- 
class  buildings  may  be  built  within  the  fire  limits.  The  introduc¬ 
tion  of  sprinklers  in  the  existing  second  class  buildings  will  make 
these  buildings  practically  as  satisfactory  from  a  fire  hazard  stand¬ 
point  as  the  first-class  buildings.  The  installation  of  automatic 
sprinklers  will  entail  some  expense,  but  we  feel  that  the  expense 
is  justified.  From  experience  with  the  automatic  sprinkler  in  in¬ 
dustrial  as  well  as  in  other  buildings,  including  all  sorts  of  storage 
warehouses,  retail  dry  goods  stores,  etc.,  it  has  proved  itself  not  only 
of  value  from  a  fire  prevention  standpoint,  but  also  a  good  invest¬ 
ment  on  account  of  the  reduction  in  insurance  rates. 

The  introduction  of  sprinklers  is  becoming  more  and  more  com¬ 
mon  in  other  large  cities,  and  will  undoubtedly  soon  be  required  by 
law  in  nearly  all  classes  of  buildings.  There  are  many  benefits  to 
be  derived  from  the  use  of  automatic  sprinklers  which  are  not  or¬ 
dinarily  given  sufficient  consideration,  such  as : 

(1)  The  reduction  in  risk  of  loss  of  life,  particularly  in  build¬ 
ings  where  large  numbers  of  people  are  employed ; 

(2)  The  saving  in  water  damage,  since  the  fire  is  put  out  by 
the  operation  of  a  few  sprinkler  heads,  thus  avoiding  the  flooding 
of  the  buildings  which  usually  takes  places  when  the  fire  streams 
are  called  into  service.  In  this  connection  it  is  to  be  noted  that  the 
protective  department  men  are  familiar  with  the  location  of  the 
sprinkler  shut-off  valves,  so  that  the  system  can  be  closed  as  soon 
as  the  fire  is  out. 

(3)  Each  building  in  the  business  section  which  is  equipped 
with  automatic  sprinklers,  reduces  the  insurance  rates  in  that  sec¬ 
tion  by  reducing  the  exposure  hazard.  If  sprinkling  is  common  very 
material  reductions  in  insurance  rates  should  follow. 

(4)  The  insurance  on  the  contents  of  the  building  would  also 
be  materially  reduced,  thus  benefiting  the  tenants,  and  more  than 
offsetting  the  increase  in  rent  made  necessary  by  the  expense  of  in¬ 
stalling  the  sprinklers. 

When  automatic  sprinklers  are  generally  introduced  the  results 
will,  of  course,  be  most  beneficial  if  the  equivalent  of  two  supplies 
can  be  given  to  every  building.  This  could  be  accomplished  by 
making  connections  to  buildings  in  blocks,  using  one  large  tank  or 
other  secondary  supply  for  the  whole  block.  We  submit  below 
a  table  giving  the  reductions  which  the  Boston  Board  of  Fire 

38 


Underwriters  will  allow  for  sprinkler  systems  with  two  supply 
pipes,  where  a  wet  pipe  system  is  used. 

REDUCTION  IN  INSURANCE  RATES  IF  AUTOMATIC  SPRINKLER 

SYSTEMS  ARE  INSTALLED. 


The  Percentage  of  Reduction  Is  Given  In  Tabular  form  with  all  the 
Different  Alarm  Systems  Which  May  Be  Used  in  Conjunction  With 


the  Sprinkler  System.  Allowance 

Wet  Pipe  System 

With  Automatic  Fire  Alarm,  Watch  Supervision  and 

Sprinkler  Notification  .  50  per  cent 

With  Watch,  Automatic  Fire  Alarm,  Sprinkler  Notifica^ 

tion  and  Auxiliary  Alarm  .  47^/4  “ 

With  Watch,  Watch  Supervision  and  Sprinkler  Notifica* 

tion  . 1 .  47 1/^ 

With  Automatic  Fire  Alarm,  and  Sprinkler  Notification  45 
With  Automatic  Fire  Alarm,  Watch  and  Watch  Sup¬ 
ervision  . . . .  45 

With  Watch,  Sprinkler  Notification  and  Auxiliary  Alarm  45 

With  Watch  and  Watch  Supervision  .  42i/4  “ 

With  Watch  and  Auxiliary  Alarm  .  42^4  “ 

With  Watch  and  Automatic  Fire  Alarm  .  42^4  “ 

With  Watch  and  Sprinkler  Notification  .  42  Y2  “ 

With  Automatic  Fire  Alarm  .  40 

With  Watch  .  40 

With  Sprinkley  Notification  .  35  “  “ 

The  following  illustration  is  typical  of  the  cost  of  insurance  be¬ 
fore  and  after  sprinkling.  This  illustration  is  taken  for  a  building 
which  has  about  35,000  sq.  ft. : 


Value  of  building . $  53,000x0 


Value  of  contents  . 150,000.00 

5-year  rate  on  building  per  $100  before 
sprinkling,  $.36  per  annum,  which 

makes  the  insurance  .  190.80 

Annual  rate  on  contents,  $i.i5>  which 
makes  the  cost  of  insurance  of  con¬ 


tents  before  sprinkling 


1,725.00 


Total  cost  of  insurance  per  annum .  $1,915.80 

The  cost  of  the  installation  of  sprinklers  would  be  approx¬ 
imately  $1750,  and  the  reduction  in  insurance  premiums  would  be 
40  percent.  Forty  percent  of  $1915.80  is  $766.32.  That  is,  an  in¬ 
vestment  of  $1750  would  make  a  saving  of  $766.32  in  insurance 
rates.  If  we  charge  15  percent  interest  and  depreciation  on  the  in¬ 
vestment,  it  still  leaves  a  net  profit  of  $503.82,  by  which  the  sprink¬ 
ler  installation  would  pay  for  itself  in  three  and  a  half  years. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  in  the  illustration  given  above  the  con¬ 
tents  value  is  high  compared  with  the  cost  of  the  building.  In 
cases  of  buildings  used  largely  for  office  purposes  where  the  con¬ 
tents  value  is  low,  the  installation  of  sprinklers  will  not,  of  course, 
prove  as  good  an  investment.  But  in  any  case  the  automatic  sprink¬ 
lers  will  yield  a  reasonable  return  through  the  reduction  in  insu¬ 
rance  rates,  besides  giving  protection  against  loss  by  fire. 

39 


APPENDIX  X. 


PROPOSED  NEW  LEGISLATION 


PART  1.— PROPOSED  ORDINANCE  TO  EXTEND  THE  BUILDING 

LIMITS. 

Section  twenty-seven  of  chapter  forty-five  of  the  Revised  Or¬ 
dinances  of  eighteen  hundred  and  ninety-eight  is  hereby  amended 
by  striking  out  all  of  said  section  and  substituting  therefor  the  fol¬ 
lowing: 

Building  Limits. 

Section  27.  The  building  limits  referred  to  in  section  nine  of 
chapter  five  hundred  and  fifty  of  the  Acts  of  the  year  nineteen  hun¬ 
dred  and  seven  are  established  as  follows:  All  of  the  city  within 
the  corporate  limits. 

Within  said  limits  no  structure  shall  be  permitted  to  be  built  of 
third  class  construction,  or  with  the  external  walls  or  roof  of  com¬ 
bustible  material,  except  as  set  forth  in  sections  nine  and  ten  of 
chapter  five  hundred  and  fifty  of  the  Acts  of  the  year  nineteen  hun¬ 
dred  and  seven. 

Every  addition  to  any  structure  within  said  limits  shall  be  of 
either  first  or  second  class  construction  as  set  forth  in  the  building 
laws. 


40 


APPENDIX  X  Cont’d. 


PART  2.— AN  ACT  TO  RESTRICT  THE  FIRE  HAZARD  AND  TO  ES¬ 
TABLISH  FIRE  LIMITS  IN  THE  CITY  OF  BOSTON. 

Section  i.  The  fire  limits  of  the  City  of  Boston  shall  in¬ 
clude  all  jiroperty  within  a  district  bounded  as  follows; 

Beginning  at  a  point  on  Charles  River  Embankment  opposite 
Berkeley  Street,  thence  southerly  along  the  line  of  Berkeley  Street 
to  the  Boston  &  Albany  Railroad,  thence  easterly  along  the  line  of 
said  railroad  to  Broadway,  thence  southeasterly  along  the  line  of 
Broadway  to  Fort  Point  Channel,  thence  by  said  channel  and  by 
the  Harbor  line  around  the  city  to  the  Charles  River  dam,  thence 
by  the  Charles  River  embankment  to  the  point  of  beginning. 

Section  2.  The  City  Council  of  the  City  of  Boston  may,  by 
ordinance  from  time  to  time,  extend  and  define  said  fire  limits  and 
may  establish  other  fire  limits  in  any  part  of  the  city  within  which 
the  provisions  of  this  Act  shall  be  enforced. 

Section  3.  Within  fire  limits  as  herein  defined  or  as  they 
may  be  from  time  to  time  extended,  defined,  or  established  as 
herein  provided,  every  structure  hereafter  built  and  every  addi¬ 
tion  hereafter  made  to  any  existing  structure  shall  be  of  first-class 
construction  throughout,  as  the  same  is  defined  in  Chapter  550  of 
the  Acts  of  1907.  This  provision  shall  not  apply  to  buildings 
erected  by  the  United  States  Government  or  structures  authorized 
by  special  act  of  the  General  Court  of  Massachusetts :  nor  to 
wharves ;  nor  to  buildings  not  exceeding  27  feet  in  height  on 
wharves ;  nor  to  market  sheds ;  nor  to  market  buildings  not  ex¬ 
ceeding  such  height;  nor  to  temporary  structures  to  facilitate  the 
prosecution  of  any  authorized  work  which  may  be  erected  under 
such  conditions  as  the  building  commissioner  may  prescribe. 

Section  4.  Within  said  fire  limits,  all  buildings  existing  at 
the  time  of  the  passage  of  this  Act,  which  are  of  second  or  third 
class  construction  shall  be  equipped  throughout  with  a  sprinkler 
service,  with  two  independent  supplies  from  the  street  mains  and 
with  sprinkler  head  and  piping,  all  installed  in  accordance  with 
the  usage  and  rules  of  the  National  Board  of  Fire  Underwriters, 
except,  however,  that  this  provision  shall  apply  to  hotels  and  lodg¬ 
ing  houses  only  in  basements,  first  stories,  public  halls  and  pubdic 
rooms  and  shall  not  otherwise  apply  to  buildings  used  only  for  habita¬ 
tion.  In  case  of  buildings  used  in  part  for  habitation  and  in  part 
for  other  purposes,  the  portions  of  said  buildings  so  otherwise 
used  shall  be  protected  by  sprinklers  as  herein  provided. 

The  installation  of  said  sprinkler  services  shall  be  complete  so 
that  the  same  shall  be  in  operation  in  all  buildings  in  which  the 
same  shall  be  required  within  two  years  from  the  date  of  the  pas¬ 
sage  of  this  Act.  After  the  expiration  of  that  time,  the  building 
commissioner  shall  cause  such  building  to  be  inspected,  and  if  the 

41 


owner  of  any  building  shall  be  found  to  have  neglected  to  comply 
with  the  provisions  of  this  Act,  the  building  commissioner  shall 
forthwith,  in  writing,  notify  the  owner,  agent,  or  any  person  hav¬ 
ing  an  interest  therein  of  such  neglect,  and  the  owner  of  any  such 
building  as  shall  not  have  been  equipped  as  herein  provided  shall  be 
liable  for  payment  of  a  fine  of  $io  for  each  and  every  day  after 
such  notice  until  the  building  is  so  equipped ;  such  fine  to  be  collect¬ 
ed  by  the  City  of  Boston  and  to  become  arpart  of  its  general  fund. 
If  such  neglect  continues  for  6o  days  after  said  notice, 
then  the  building  commissioner  shall  forthwith  affix  in  a 
conspicuous  place  upon  the  external  walls  of  said  building 
a  notice  that  the  owner  has  not  complied  with  the  requirements  of 
this  Act,  and  such  last  mentioned  notice  shall  not  be  removed  or 
defaced  without  his  consent.  The  said  commissioner  may  with  the 
written  approval  of  the  mayor  order  any  building,  the  owner  of 
which  shall  have  failed  to  comply  with  the  provisions  of  this  Act  af¬ 
ter  the  expiration  of  the  said  6o  days,  to  be  vacated  as  dangerous 
and  to  remain  vacant  until  such  provisions  have  been  carried  out. 

Section  5.  Within  the  fire  limits  as  herein  described  alter¬ 
ations  of  existing  buildings  of  the  second  -and  third  class  shall  be 
allowed  only  when  the  said  alterations  are  not  of  a  nature  to  in¬ 
crease  the  height  of  the  building,  or  the  fire  hazard,  and  only  when 
such  alterations  shall  have  been  approved  by  the  Fire  Bureau. 

Section  6.  All  acts  or  parts  of  acts  inconsistent  with  the 
provisions  of  this  Act  are  hereby  repealed,  in  so  far  as  they  affect 
such  provisions. 

Section  7.  This  Act  shall  take  effect  upon  its  passage. 


42 


APPENDIX  X  Cont’d. 

PART  3.— AN  ACT  TO  ESTABLISH  A  FIRE  BUREAU  IN  THE  CITY 

OF  BOSTON. 

Section  i.  There  shall  be  established  in  the  city  of  Boston 
a  Board  to  be  called  the  Fire  Bureau,  which  shall  consist  of  the 
Fire  Commissioner,  Building  Commissioner  and  the  Police  Com¬ 
missioner  of  said  City,  ex  officiis,  and  four  other  members,  citi¬ 
zens  of  Massachusetts,  who  shall  be  residents  of  or  engaged  in 
business  in  said  City;  to  be  appointed  by  the  mayor  in  following 
manner: —  One  member  from  two  candidates,  one  to  be  nominated 
by  the  Boston  Chamber  of  Commerce,  and  one  by  the  Boston  Real 
Estate  and  Auction  Board;  one  member  from  two  candidates  to 
be  nominated  by  the  Bar  Association  of  the  City  of  Boston ;  one 
member  from  two  candidates,  one  to  be  nominated  by  the  Boston 
Society  of  Architects,  and  one  by  the  Boston  Society  of  Civil  En¬ 
gineers;  one  member  from  two  candidates,  one  to  be  nominated 
by  the  Master  Builders’  Association,  and  one  by  the  Contractors’ 
and  Builders’  Association.  These  appointments  shall  not  be  sub¬ 
ject  to  confirmation  by  the  Civil  Service  Commission.  The  ap¬ 
pointments  first  made  shall  be  for  the  terms  of  one,  two,  three 
and  four  years  respectively,  so  that  the  term  of  one  member  shall 
expire  each  year.  All  subsequent  appointments  shall  be  for  the 
term  of  four  years.  Vacancies  shall  be  filled  in  tht»  same  man¬ 
ner  in  which  the  original  appointments  are  made.  The  mayor 
shall  designate,  as  Chairman  of  the  Bureau,  one  of  the  four  ap¬ 
pointed  members.  The  Chairman  shall  receive  as  salary  the  sum 
of  $1,500  per  annum  and  the  other  appointed  members  shall  each 
be  paid  at  the  rate  of  $10  per  day  for  actual  service,  but  not  more 
than  $1,000  in  any  one  year. 

Section  2.  The  Bureau  is  authorized  and  directed  at  its 
discretion  to  employ  such  inspectors,  assistants  and  clerks  as  it 
may  deem  necessary  and,  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  mayor, 
to  fix  the  salaries  to  be  paid  therefor,  to  rent  suitable  premises 
and  to  incur  expenses  for  traveling,  printing  and  such  other  mat¬ 
ters  as  shall  be  incidental  to  the  work  of  the  bureau.  The  ex¬ 
penses  thus  incurred  as  well  as  the  compensation  of  the  members 
of  the  bureau  shall  be  paid  by  the  city  upon  warrants  signed  by 
the  Chairman. 

Section  3.  This  Bureau  shall  have  within  the  limits  of  the 
City  of  Boston  all  the  authority  and  all  the  duties  and  shall  be 
charged  with  all  the  responsibility  of  the  State  Eire  Marshal  as 
described  in  Sections  2-5  inclusive  of  Chapter  32  of  the  Revised 
Laws  of  Massachusetts  and  the  jurisdiction  of  said  Eire  Marshal 
in  said  city  of  Boston  shall  cease  with  the  passage  of  this  Act. 

This  Bureau  shall  make  a  public  report  each  year,  stating 
the  causes  of  all  fires  which  shall  have  occurred  in  the  city  of 
Boston  during  the  preceding  year,  giving  "iRe  names  of  the  per- 

43 


son  or  persons  responsible  therefor,  which  report  shall  be  printed 
and  distributed  as  a  public  document  and  shall  from  time  to  time 
report  to  the  prosecuting  attorney  of  Suffolk  County  any  viola¬ 
tions  of  law  which  it  shall  discover. 

No  material  shall  be  removed  and  no  repairs  shall  be  made  to 
a  building  damaged  by  fire  until  the  Bureau  has  made  its  inves¬ 
tigation  of  the  premises  or  has  given  a  definite  permit  in  writ¬ 
ing,  permitting  such  removal  or  repairs. 

Section  4.  This  Bureau  shall  examine  all  buildings  for  the 
erection  or  alteration  of  which  permits  shall  be  granted  by  the 
Building  Department  of  the  City  of  Boston  and  it  shall  be  the  duty 
of  the  Building  Department  to  report  to  this  Bureau  all  such  per¬ 
mits  when  granted;  and  this  Bureau  shall  issue  a  report  as  to  the 
condition  of  said  buildings,  stating  whether  or  not  they  conform 
in  construction  and  equipment  to  the  laws  regulating  such  con¬ 
struction  and  equipment;  and  said  Bureau  shall  have  the  power  to 
forbid  the  issuance  of  permanent  fire  insurance  policies  on  any  such 
building  and  to  order  the  cancellation  of  any  policies  of  fire  insur¬ 
ance  which  may  have  been  placed  on  such  building  prior  to  such 
examination  and  report;  provided,  however,  that  nothing  herein 
shall  be  construed  to  prevent  the  issuance  of  fire  insurance  on  build¬ 
ings  in  process  of  construction. 

Section  5.  This  Bureau  shall  have  power  to  make  such  rules 
or  regulations  as  it  shall  deem  necessary  to  lessen  the  fire  haz¬ 
ard,  to  provide  for  the  safety  of  occupants  of  buildings,  to  enforce 
proper  care  in  handling  and  storing  combustibles,  and  to  prevent 
carelessness  as  far  as  it  increases  the  fire  risk.  Any  violation  of  the 
rules,  regulations  or  decisions  of  the  Bureau  shall  be  punishable 
by  fine  or  imprisonment  of  the  party  or  parties  responsible  or  by 
closure  of  the  building  affected,  the  recommendations  of  the  Bureau 
being  enforced  in  the  same  manner  as  is  now  provided  for  the  rec¬ 
ommendations  of  the  state  and  local  Boards  of  Health. 

Section  6.  All  of  the  official  acts  and  utterances  of  this  Bu¬ 
reau  shall  be  privileged. 

Section  7.  All  acts  or  parts  of  acts  inconsistent  with  the 
provisions  of  this  act  are  hereby  repealed  in  so  far  as  they  affect 
such  provisions. 

Section  8.  This  Act  shall  take  effect  upon  its  passage. 


44 


APPENDIX  XL 


SAVING  IN  INSURANCE  RATES  POSSIBLE  AS  RESULT 
OF  INTRODUCTION  OF  HIGH  PRESSURE  SERVICE. 


Boston  Board  of  Fire  Underwriters, 

February  13,  1911. 

Mr.  C.  H.  Blackall. 

Dear  Sir:  A  meeting  of  the  Executive  Committee  \vas  held 
this  morning.  The  Committee  authorized  me  to  say  to  you  that 
they  were  unanimously  in  favor  of  making  a  reduction  in  the  rates 
in  the  congested  district  of  Boston,  provided  the  high  pressure  fire 
service  system,  as  proposed  by  the  late  City  Engineer,  Jackson,  is 
installed.  This  reduction  should  amount  to  from  $100,000  to 


$125,000. 


Yours  very  sincerely, 

F.  E.  CABOT, 
Secretary. 


45 


APPENDIX  XII. 


FIRE  FIGHTING  APPARATUS  AND  FIRE 

DEPARTMENTS 


To  arrive  at  definite  conclusions  as  to  the  condition  of  the  Bos¬ 
ton  Fire  Department,  comparisons  have  been  made  with  the  depart¬ 
ments  of  cities  of  about  the  same  size.  These  comparisons  are 
taken  from  data  contained  in  the  annual  reports  of  the  cities  of  St. 
Louis,  Cleveland  and  Baltimore. 

From  the  standpoint  of  equipment,  we  find  that  the  Boston  De¬ 
partment  has  more  apparatus  than  any  of  the  aforementioned  cities, 
and  that  the  apparatus  is  in  good  condition.  The  force  available 
for  fire  service  consists  of  44  engine  compnies,  27  ladder  companies, 
13  chemical  companies,  3  towers  and  3  fire-boats,  a  total  of  90 
companies,  manned  by  a  force  of  992  men.  St.  Louis  has  but  64 
companies  with  a  force  of  738;  Baltimore,  56  companies  with  a 
force  of  680;  Cleveland,  48  companies  with  a  force  of  520.  While 
the  daily  reports  of  the  Boston  Department  show  an  enrollment  of 
from  992  to  994  men,  the  force  available  for  fire  duty  is  not  always 
up  to  standard,  and  companies  very  often  report  at  fires  without  a 
sufficient  number  of  men  for  effective  service.  This  condition  is 
likely  to  exist  with  frequency  during  meal  hours  and  vacation  pe¬ 
riods.  The  following  figures  taken  from  the  morning  reports — Au¬ 
gust  15th,  1910,  being  a  vacation  period,  December  i6th,  not  a  va¬ 
cation  period — show  the  force  available  for  fire  duty : 


Fire  Force. 

587 

664 


Details, 

Total  Days  off  and 

Date  Enrollment  Vacations 

August  15,  1910.  992  405 

December  16,  1910  994  330 

The  total  number  is  further  reduced  during  meal  hours,  so  that 
from  6.00  a.  m.  to  9.15  p.  m.  every  day,  there  is  one-third  of  the 
force  on  leave,  reducing  the  number  of  available  men  for  fire  duty 
on  August  15th  to  392,  and  on  December  i6th  to  443.  Under  these 
conditions  a  very  ordinary  fire  at  the  start  often  requires  the  sending 
in  of  a  second  and  sometimes  a  third  alarm,  to  get  a  sufficient  num¬ 
ber  of  men  to  properly  handle  the  first  alarm  apparatus.  While 
waiting  for  the  second  and  third  alarm  companies  to  respond,  val¬ 
uable  time  is  lost  and  the  fire  is  very  apt  to  make  headway  during  the 
periods  of  waiting.  To  obviate  this  weakness  in  the  Department, 
the  Fire  Commissioner  has  recently  recommended  the  appointment 
of  additional  firemen  so  that  the  force  may  be  adequate  at  all  times. 
The  Committee  believes  that  this  is  a  wise  provision. 

A  feature  which  is  likely  to  prove  beneficial,  not  omy  to  Boston, 
but  to  many  of  the  surrounding  cities  and  towns,  is  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  a  system  of  covering  whereby  the  fire  department  of  one 

46 


municipality  can  procure  aid  from  an  adjoining  town.  This  system 
has  not  yet  been  put  into  effect  over  the  entire  metropolitan  dis¬ 
trict,  but  the  co-operation  of  the  departments  in  the  cities  and  towns 
contiguous  to  Boston  has  already  been  secured.  Arrangements 
have  been  completed  between  Boston  and  several  of  the  surround¬ 
ing  municipalities  whereby,  on  first  alarms,  apparatus  located  near 
boundary  lines  crosses  over  into  the  other  town  in  answer  to  alarms 
from  border  boxes.  Boston  has  this  arrangement  with  Somerville, 
Newton  and  Milton,  and  it  is  probable  that  Cambridge  and  Brook¬ 
line  will  also  adopt  the  plan. 

The  Boston  Fire  Signal  Service,  which  establishes  direct  and 
instant  knowledge  of  fire  in  any  adjoining  territory  and  by  means 
of  which  apparatus  can  be  summoned  by  a  series  of  signals,  ex¬ 
tends  at  present  to  Cambridge,  Newton,  Brookline,  Milton,  Somer¬ 
ville  and  Chelsea;  service  from  outside  with  Boston  Fire  Depart¬ 
ment  houses  is  from  Brookline.  Cambridge,  Milton  and  Somer¬ 
ville.  It  is  the  intention  of  the  Boston  Department  to  extend  this 
branch  of  the  service  as  rapidly  as  conditions  will  permit. 

The  fire  alarm  branch  of  the  department,  while  not  the  most 
modern,  is,  nevertheless,  efficient.  The  building  where  the  head¬ 
quarters  is  located,  and  in  which  the  fire  alarm  branch  is  installed, 
»s  in  a  bad  fire  district,  threatening  the  possible  disablement  of  the 
system  in  case  of  conflagration  there.  The  building  is  of  fireproof 
construction  and  equipped  with  a  water  curtain,  but  there  is  con¬ 
siderable  woodwork  used  inside  the  building  which  should  be  re¬ 
moved  as  far  as  it  is  practicable  to  do  so. 

The  water  supply  in  Boston  is  equal  to  that  of  any  city  in  the 
country.  It  can  deliver  at  a  given  point  about  25,000  gallons  a 
minute,  an  amount  sufficient  for  fire  fighting  purposes  under  ordin¬ 
ary  conditions.  If  the  proposed  high  pressure  system  be  installed 
as  recommended  by  this  Committee,  substantially  as  embodied  in 
Chapter  312  of  the  Acts  of  1911,  Boston  will  have  one  of  the  most 
efficient  fire  departments  in  the  country. 


47 


s.kV. 


QIC'.' 


'f^ii 


:t, 


ilsK 


3  011 2  098432955 


MS" 


■<V': 


•/►iV' 


'>■0 


T>< 


— •)■■■  ’■  ■■  '•;  e^>w-w*fl  ^.^;i..ti^ 

JK|  -  Ft  ’  ^::^:  ••'  >r  ' 

rw/'-  :  ■  :i' ; 

,  : .  ■  I-  -vtt 

.  •  '  ,.v_.;^  :■  r^  -.7  ^,.-i:’.  0  -vF  . 

':!•'.  *  '  .i.'u  ;  V:  ,V‘  *f,i^  I. '>■  ■ 


'S 


.,TS?-i 


fK] 


;*33' 


V;>-« 


h-yi 


»  n 


•T  ■*  .  ^  I  ^  j  »■  ‘  j  •  1 .  '  'I  ;  * 

"  .Sa  ' 


■  v‘:'^ 


‘M I 


P  C" 


* , 


V  • 


' ; '  M‘  <(  'i 


**¥£S 


py 


.-,  I  itWl 

'•:'ls!:';!t.A, . 


in '.I  '■'.•"‘•‘i' 


'  «^4 


'V’l  , ,  ^ 


•  V  /‘  '  s.'  , 

Bait....: 


-  74>^ 


.  ^•\  , 

■’ 


♦  '  i«» 


•  «ni 


1  ■?•* 


I 


f  j'. 
/  ' 


,  ^Uf.,  ■  ’  “'* 


22i. 


C'v  s 


y  „  ■'■  ■  A.  "  V 

ijiu  >  i#,"  K' ...  f ,  ■  '>  r'M's' 

I  4Afi  '  't<  <k  w.'F '.'  i  ‘.V'M^ifei^SIHHHRE 


.t 


j.' 


i( . 


■ lib 

.y-V  a7 


>«> 


v/i.ii 


*#.’,.>  k  *  I  •  •T  .  a  ' 


'/« 


.'O' 


y'.;l: 


'l<^ 


»• 


il!Ii 


